To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Criminal Justice Information Network Governing Board : a report to the General Assembly

Criminal Justice Information Network Governing Board : a report to the General Assembly

North Carolina Criminal Justice Information Network Governing Board Report
Submitted to the
Senior Chair, Chairs, Co-Chairs, and Vice Chairs of the
Senate and House Appropriations Committees
and the
Chairs, Co-Chairs, and Vice Chairs of the
Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety
April 2012
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
Strategic Direction & Recommendations ...................................................................................... 3
Background .................................................................................................................................. 7
Governing Board ......................................................................................................................... 10
CJIN Governing Board Membership ................................................................................... 10
CJIN Governing Board Financials ....................................................................................... 10
CJIN Governing Board ........................................................................................................ 11
DNA Expunction .......................................................................................................................... 12
Background ......................................................................................................................... 12
Survey of Other States ........................................................................................................ 13
State of California DNA Expungement Form ...................................................................... 21
North Carolina HB1403 ....................................................................................................... 24
DOJ Report ......................................................................................................................... 34
Criminal Justice Information Sharing .......................................................................................... 40
Background ......................................................................................................................... 40
NC Criminal Justice Data Base ........................................................................................... 45
Interface Two Regional Systems ........................................................................................ 71
Specific Data Exchange Standards ..................................................................................... 74
Agencies without Automation – CJIN Initiative .................................................................... 78
Scrap Metal Study ....................................................................................................................... 79
North Carolina GS 66-11 ..................................................................................................... 79
Mississippi Scrap Metal ....................................................................................................... 82
Arkansas Scrap Metal ......................................................................................................... 93
Updated Pawn Broker Transaction Study ................................................................................... 97
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 97
Background ......................................................................................................................... 98
Existing North Carolina Systems ....................................................................................... 112
Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 129
Activities ................................................................................................................................... 130
Cities and Towns ............................................................................................................... 131
Counties ............................................................................................................................ 134
State Systems ................................................................................................................... 136
Federal Agencies .............................................................................................................. 138
Friends of CJIN ......................................................................................................................... 140
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 147
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 1
Executive Summary
The Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN) Governing Board created pursuant to Section
23.3 of Chapter 18 of the Session Laws of the 1996 Second Extra Session shall report by April
1st of each year, to the Chairs of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, the Chairs
of the Senate and House Appropriations subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety, and the
Fiscal Research Division of the General Assembly on:
• The operating budget of the Board, the expenditures of the Board as of the date of the
report, and the amount of funds in reserve for the operation of the Board; and
• A long-term strategic plan and the cost analysis for statewide implementation of the
Criminal Justice Information Network. For each component of the Network, the initial
cost estimate of the component, the amount of funds spent to date on the component,
the source of funds for expenditures to date, and a timetable for completion of that
component, including additional resources needed at each point.
The 2012 CJIN Annual Report contains the Board’s recommendations based on workshops,
discussions, and presentations over the last year. One of the main objectives was to evaluate
and identify enterprise solutions that were compatible with on-going projects but did not require
substantial funding. The Board also addressed and resolved numerous action items that were
brought to the Board’s attention from a variety of sources. All of the Board’s recommendations
and action items are contained in the Section entitled “Strategic Direction and
Recommendations.”
During 2011-2012, the CJIN Board addressed various strategic issues facing the criminal justice
community; Interconnecting two Regional Information Sharing Systems, DNA Expunction, Scrap
Metal Dealers, Impact of Next Generation 911 on Electronic Discovery, Mobile Data and Smart
Phone Applications, Crime Mapping, Electronic Interface to NCAWARE, Two-Factor
Authentication, DMV’s Interface to Crash Systems,
The Board continues to recommend the adoption of information exchange standards. After
extensive research coupled with partnerships with both the local law enforcement agencies and
their Record Management System (RMS) Vendors, the CJIN Board recommended the adoption
of data exchange standards within the State of North Carolina. Adopting a specific standard will
not only potentially save law enforcement tens of millions of dollars in the future but more
importantly it will provide the criminal justice community with an abundance of actionable
information that is not currently available to most agencies today. Furthermore, to our
knowledge, North Carolina would be the first state to deploy such a strategy and this practice
could be extended to other applications both within and outside of criminal justice. A section of
this report is dedicated to the Board’s Updated Information Sharing Initiative. Additionally, the
CJIN staff has been working with numerous state and local agencies on an information sharing
initiative designed for law enforcement agencies that are not automated and cannot afford the
required equipment.
The Board was directed to study the feasibility of creating an automated pawn transaction
database system as part of the Criminal Justice Information Network. The Board submitted the
results of this study in April 2010. To facilitate this study, the CJIN Board conducted workshops
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 2
with county and municipal law enforcement agencies, information technology professionals,
pawnshop owners, pawnshop lobbyists, and vendors operating in North Carolina. A significant
portion of two CJIN Board meetings were dedicated to presentations and discussions regarding
the study. Additionally, the CJIN staff reviewed numerous other studies that were completed by
other states and participated in conversations with personnel from those states. What we did
not know, and learned in the process of performing the study, was that for an incremental
increase in technology coupled with legislative changes that would extend past the pawn
industry to potentially include scrap metal, precious metals, secondhand dealers, etc. would
have a far greater impact on reducing property crime in the State of North Carolina. Included in
this report is an updated version of 2010 report. At our February 2012 Meeting, Senator Wesley
Meredith shared with the Board his vision of regulating second-hand dealers that deal in cash
along with his 2011 Cash Converters Bill; that is now law. The undertaking of a study of Scrap
Metal should be available in the near future; an overview of this study is presented in this report.
The report also contains background information regarding the Governing Board and the
membership, an update on criminal justice activities, a proposed strategic direction, and
research derived from federal, state and local government initiatives that could be utilized within
the state, recognition of personnel providing assistance, and a review of our 2011 opportunities.
The General Appropriations Committee, the Appropriations Justice and Public Safety
Subcommittee, and the Joint Legislative Correction, Crime Control, and Juvenile Justice
Oversight Committee have historically relied upon the CJIN Board to undertake high profile
initiatives, requested cost allocation reports with recommendations, and allowed the Board to
provide technical demonstrations. The CJIN Board has provided various presentations to the
Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology. On December 12, 2011 the
Chair of the Board presented to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committees on Health and
Human Services and the Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology the
concept of providing mental health facilities with criminal history.
The CJIN Board has successfully installed a statewide criminal justice infrastructure that has
made information sharing a possibility – their implemented projects included mobile voice &
data, fingerprinting, court and juvenile justice applications, along with access to federal data
bases. The CJIN Board is by far the most knowledgeable cross-section of criminal justice
professionals assembled in North Carolina and possesses a proven track record of success.
Because most statewide projects cross over the jurisdictional boundaries between the Judicial
and the Executive branches, the membership of the CJIN Board is well represented by both
sides and has a history of success in working together.
In summary, the Board is comprised of 21 members appointed by the Governor, Chief Justice,
Speaker of the House, Senate President, Attorney General, and State Chief Information Officer.
It is the background of these members that has made all the aforementioned projects and the
ones highlighted in this report a success – Six Chief Information Officers/IT Directors, four from
law enforcement, six Officers of the Court, three general public, DMV Commissioner, and Chief
of Staff with Juvenile Justice.
.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 3
Strategic Direction & Recommendations
In keeping with our objectives, the CJIN Board adopted a strategic direction that addressed
numerous initiatives over the last several years. These initiatives and the actions of the Board
are outlined below:
At the October 13, 2011 Board meeting, the members approved the interface between two
incident-based systems within North Carolina (based on receiving the cost summaries) –
Interfacing Charlotte/Mecklenburg’s COPLINK System (55 Agencies) to the Naval Criminal
Investigative Services (NCIS) LInX System (60 Agencies). Prior to making a decision, the
Board received several presentations and participated in a lengthy decision with personnel from
NCIS, Jacksonville PD, Northrop Grumman, Charlotte/Mecklenburg PD, i2 COPLINK, and Horry
County, SC. The regional local arrest/incident reporting systems, when interfaced, will serve
appropriately 50% of the State.
At the February 23, 2012 Board meeting, the members directed the CJIN staff to work with the
law enforcement agencies across the state to study the impact, if any, that the Scrap Metal
business is having on property crime. The staff is working with numerous law enforcement
agencies, other states, several members of the legislature, the electric utilities in NC, the
telecommunication companies, etc. The study will be done in a similar manner as the Pawn
Transaction Study and will contain recommendations.
Additionally, at the February 23, 2012 Board meeting, the members received an overview along
with some insight into one of the challenges facing the District Attorneys – Expunging DNA. As
a follow-up to this issue, the Board received a presentation at the March 29, 2012 Board
meeting. After discussions the board agreed to recommend handling DNA Expunction in the
same manner as other states.
At the October 14, 2010 Board meeting, the members approved the following Local Law
Enforcement Information Sharing recommendations:
• Adopt a specific data standard to be used for Record Management System (RMS)
Vendors to exchange information with a designated repository;
• Allow the local law enforcement agencies and the regional systems to begin exchanging
information with a federal agency (to be determined – FBI or NCIS);
• Request that each RMS Vendor select one of their North Carolina Law Enforcement
Agencies and implement an operational data standard with a federal agency (to be
determined – FBI or NCIS) as a proof of concept; and
• Redirect the routing of information from the selected federal agency back to the SBI
when the state repository becomes fully operational.
The Pawn Transaction Study Report was approved by the Board on March 18, 2010 with the
following Study Recommendation:
• What we did not know and learned in the process of performing the study was that for an
incremental increase in technology coupled with legislative changes that would extend
past the pawn brokers to potentially include scrap metal, precious metals, secondhand
dealers, etc. would have a far greater impact on reducing property crime in the State of
North Carolina.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 4
• For this reason, the CJIN Board respectfully requests the Oversight Committee consider
allowing the Board to broaden the original study.
Note: There are numerous other states that are either in the process of studying this or have
recently implemented similar legislation.
At the March 18, 2010 Board meeting, the members agreed to support SB-144 which requires
Cash Converter Businesses to keep records of purchases and to make those records available
to local law enforcement.
Based on all the presentations, workshops, and input from the criminal justice community, the
CJIN Board supports the following recommendations, initiatives, and projects:
• Deploy national standards for information sharing especially the ones that are already
being utilized and proven to be successful, which will result in a decrease in operating
costs and cost avoidance in the tens of millions, viable candidates include Local Law
Enforcement Record Management Systems (RMS), Jail Management Systems (JMS),
Traffic Crash Systems, etc.;
• Utilize and enhance existing systems prior to spending millions of dollars on the
development of new systems, especially if the existing systems are very successful;
example, expand the use of NCIS’s Law Enforcement Information Exchange (LInX).
The LInX System has a proven track record within the NC Local Law Enforcement
community; therefore, this system should be expanded and interconnected with other
state and federal agencies;
• Continue the Board’s partnerships with NC businesses that assist law enforcement
agencies; Pawn Brokers, RMS/JMS Vendors, Crime Mapping Vendors, etc.;
• Continue to support the Electronic Discovery Project; assist the District Attorneys, the
Administrative Office of the Courts, the State Bureau of Investigation, the local law
enforcement agencies, etc.;
• Investigate the possibility of securing federal funding for using North Carolina as a
candidate for a statewide broadband network similar to the San Francisco/Bay Area
which was the selected candidate for a regional solution;
• Continue to support the expansion of the CJLEADS Project; and
• Continue to support the expansion of the NCAWARE Project.
• Continue to support the SBI’s project – NC DEx; which is still in the process of being
developed.
The CJIN Board is committed to exploring opportunities that will enhance the Criminal Justice
Community.
During the last year, the CJIN Board had the opportunity to coordinate with various agencies the
resolution of numerous action items; the following items represent a sample of these:
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 5
• Provide the District Attorneys and the Assistant District Attorneys with access to the
Division of Motor Vehicles database; the request from the DAs was completed based on
the assistance of the Office of the State Controller, the CJLEADS Project Team, and the
DMV Commissioner.
• Provide the RMS Companies with an electronic interface and a regular download of the
NCAWARE database; the Administrative Office of the Courts has successfully provided
the RMS Vendors with a nightly download of the warrants and they are considering an
electronic interface in their future plans.
• Provide mental health facilities with access to criminal records; the Attorney’s General
Office assisted the CJIN Staff and the forensic facility that handles the pretrial
evaluations has been contacted.
• Provide the DA’s Office with more information technology functionality; the
Administrative Office of the Courts resolved the issues of remote access to ACIS, the
viewing of video evidence, and added several future enhancements to their NCAWARE
Project.
• Based on requests and clarification from numerous criminal justice agencies, the CJIN
Board requested and received a comprehensive presentation from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) on the subject of two-factor authentication. The power point
provided by the FBI was made available to agencies and will be posted on our new
website with the Office of Information Technology Services.
• Based on requests regarding future discoverable items (text & video) from next
generation 911, the executive director of the NC 911 Board provided the members with a
comprehensive presentation of the possibilities for processing and storing text and
video. The CJIN Board is very interested in the handoff of this possible evidence to
criminal justice and the impact that it could have on the Administrative Office of the
Courts Electronic Discovery Project.
• During the Board’s workshops with the RMS vendors, the subject of Geographical
Information Systems was mentioned on various occasions. For this reason and to
provide the members with a better understanding of the NC-One Map, the Board
requested and received a comprehensive presentation from the Executive Director of the
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis; a download of this
information is free.
CJIN’s Criminal Justice Data Base
The CJIN Board started collecting information several years ago. The data elements are
outlined in Criminal Justice Information Sharing Section of this report.
Based on the data collected, the following information sharing systems were identified (based
on the number of agencies using the system and the number of sworn officers in the agency).
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 6
The criminal justice data base is still being developed; therefore, systems such as CJLEADS,
NCAWARE, CJIN Mobile Data, DAS, etc. are being added on a per agency/sworn officer basis.
There are approximately 550 agencies and 22,000 sworn officers within North Carolina and it is
important that we ensure that these valuable systems reach these officers and not just their
agency.
At some point, we need to perform traffic studies to determine the value of each one of these
systems. Usage is very important as we move toward integration, web services, single sign-on,
advanced authentication, etc. because it will allow us to prioritize projects and allocate
expenditures based on return on investment.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
COPLINK
LInX
P2P
Rambler
Inform
Leads
Gang Net
Number of Agencies
Information Sharing Systems
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
COPLINK
LInX
P2P
Rambler
Inform
Leads
Gang Net
Number of Sworn Officers
Information Sharing Systems
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 7
Background
The North Carolina Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN) initiative is a project which will
allow the sharing of information between state and local criminal justice agencies.
During the 1994 Special Crime Session, the North Carolina General Assembly created the CJIN
Study Committee and appropriated monies to study and develop a plan for a statewide criminal
justice information network. The CJIN Study Final Report, dated April 7, 1995, outlined a
comprehensive strategic plan that provided the vision for the statewide Criminal Justice
Information Network in North Carolina. Based on recommendations and strategies identified in
the plan, the General Assembly established the Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN)
Governing Board in Section 23.3 of Chapter 18 of the Session Laws of the 1996 Second Extra
Session.
North Carolina is recognized today in the nation as one of the leading states in developing a
statewide criminal justice infrastructure. Our success is due directly in part to the North Carolina
General Assembly recognizing the need for further coordination and cooperation between state
and local agencies in establishing standards for sharing of criminal justice information.
The CJIN Governing Board created the following vision:
To develop a statewide criminal justice information network in North Carolina that will
enable a properly authorized user to readily and effectively use information, regardless
of its location in national, state, or local databases.
The Governing Board has built an outstanding reputation for successfully implementing
statewide programs. This success can be directly attributable to the hard work and dedication
of the board members along with their experience and diversity. The composition of the board
is made up of professionals from the state, county, and municipal levels representing law
enforcement, the court system, corrections, juvenile justice, information technology, and the
public.
Study Final Report Findings
The North Carolina Legislature, during their 1994 Special Crime Session, created a ‘Blue
Ribbon’ Study Committee to identify alternative strategies for developing and implementing a
statewide criminal justice information network in North Carolina that would permit the sharing of
information between state and local agencies. An examination of the state’s current criminal
justice information systems revealed the following deficiencies:
• It takes too long to positively identify persons. From fingerprints to photographs,
information is scattered across different databases and filing systems.
• A single, comprehensive source for a person’s criminal history is not available in North
Carolina. Bits and pieces must be assembled on each individual, causing valuable time
to be wasted on information collection.
• There is no single source of outstanding warrants. A person wanted in one county could
be stopped in another while the officer has no knowledge of an outstanding warrant.
This situation compromises public and officer safety.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 8
• Data is entered excessively and redundantly. There is no single, centralized location for
all information and records so data is entered and reentered over and over again into
separate databases using different coding systems.
• There is no statewide, interagency mobile voice and data communications system.
Officers cannot talk to their counterparts across their own county, much less to those
across the state.
Study Final Report Recommendations
The CJIN Study Committee outlined the following major recommendations for removing these
barriers that hindered the establishment and implementation of a comprehensive criminal justice
information network. These recommendations also took into account the major building blocks
for a statewide criminal justice information network that were already in place in 1995.
• Establish a CJIN Governing Board to create, promote, and enforce policies and
standards.
• Adopt system architecture standards, end-user upgrades, and system security standards
to facilitate movement of data between systems.
• Establish data standards for sharing information, including common definitions, code
structures, and formats.
• Implement Live Scan digitized fingerprint systems and Statewide Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (SAFIS) technology to accomplish positive fingerprint identification
within two hours of arrest.
• Implement a statewide magistrate system to streamline the process of warrant and case
creation.
• Build a statewide warrant repository that contains all new and served warrant
information.
• Implement a statewide fingerprint-based criminal history that includes all arrests and
dispositions.
• Build a statewide identification index that includes information from all state and local
agencies, as well as necessary linkages to federal justice agencies.
• Establish standards for, and implement a mobile voice and data communication network
that allows state and local law enforcement and public safety agencies to communicate
with each other, regardless of location within the state.
Participants
CJIN is comprised of state, local, public and private representatives. The Department of Public
Safety (Division of Correction, the Division of Law Enforcement, & the Division of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention), the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Division of
Motor Vehicles, and the State Chief Information Officer are participating CJIN state agencies.
Local representation includes Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, County Commissioners, County
Information System Directors, North Carolina Chapter of Public Communications Officials
International, Court Clerks of Superior Court, Judges, District Attorneys, general public
appointments by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of
the Senate, and the North Carolina Local Government Information System Association
(NCLGISA).
Initiatives
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 9
The following CJIN initiatives evolved from the CJIN Study Final Report Recommendations:
• Voice Interoperability Plan for Emergency Responders (VIPER)
• Statewide Automated Fingerprint Identification System (SAFIS)
• CJIN-Mobile Data Network (CJIN-MDN)
• North Carolina Juvenile Online Information Network (NC-JOIN)
• Statewide Magistrate System
• End-User Technology
• CJIN Network Security
• CJIN Data Sharing Standards
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 10
Governing Board
Section 23.3 of Chapter 18 of the Session Laws of the 1996 Second Extra Session established
the Criminal Justice Information Network Governing Board within the Department of Justice
(DOJ) for administrative and budgetary purposes. Section 17.1.(a) of the Session Law 2003-
284 House Bill 397 transferred CJIN to the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
(DCC&PS). The CJIN Governing Board is established within the DCC&PS for organizational
and budgetary purposes only and the Board exercises all of its statutory power independent of
control by the DCC&PS.
CJIN Governing Board Membership
There are twenty-one legislatively defined members on the Board. The CJIN Executive Director
serves as an advisory member to the Board and is supported by an Administrative Assistant.
There is also an ex-officio advisory member that represents the local city and county Information
System (IS) directors.
Mr. Robert Brinson, Department of Public Safety, Chief Information Officer, was re-elected as
the CJIN Chair and Mr. Bill Stice, Town of Cary, Technology Service Director, resigned as the
Vice Chair. The Board has an open action item to elect a Vice Chair.
The CJIN Web Site reflects almost all of the presentations provided at each meeting, all CJIN
reports, minutes of all the meetings, board membership, projects, and other relevant CJIN
activities. A CJIN email address is available for questions on CJIN operations. Based on all the
presentations and workshops over the last two years an information sharing section was added
to the Web Site that reflects projects from the federal, state, and local levels – power point
presentations, handouts, contact information, etc. Within the next month, the web site will be
relocated to the Office of Information Technology Services Home Page. The CJIN Staff applied
for and received a new domain name for the CJIN Site; www.cjin.nc.gov.
CJIN Governing Board Financials
Office of Information Technology Services
Criminal Justice Information Network
Period Ending: February 29, 2012
Authorized Budget – Purchased Services $18,542.00
Balance to Date $15,822.16
Note: Does not contain expenditures for Web Site ($5,000), Office Supplies ($750), Board
Travel (March & possibly June - $2,000)), and computer & telecommunication support for
remainder of the fiscal year ($1,800).
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 11
CJIN Governing Board
Governing Board Counsel – Lars Nance, Technical Advisor – Earl Bunting, Administrative Assistant – LaVonda Fowler, Executive Director – Eugene Vardaman
Appointed By Description Current Member
Governor Employee of Department of Crime Control & Public Safety Captain Robert West, NC State Highway Patrol
Governor Director or employee of State Correction Agency Robert Brinson, CIO, Dept. of Public Safety
Governor Representative recommended by the Association of Chiefs of Police Chief Glen Allen, City of Clayton P.D.
Governor Employee of Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention David Jones, Deputy Secretary
Governor Employee of Division of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Mike Robertson
General Assembly Representative of general public, recommended by the President Pro Tempore
of the Senate Robert Lee
General Assembly Representative of general public, recommended by the President Pro Tempore
of the Senate
Doug Logan, Emergency Management Coordinator, Granville
County
General Assembly Individual who is member of or working directly for the governing board of a
NC municipality and recommended by President Pro Tempore of the Senate Crystal Cody, Program Manager, Charlotte/Mecklenburg PD
General Assembly Representative of the general public, recommended by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives Victor Watts
General Assembly Representative of the general public, recommended by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives Norlan Graves, ADA, Halifax County
General Assembly
Individual who is a working member of or working directly for the governing
board of a NC county, recommended by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Todd Jones, Orange County, Chief Information Officer
Attorney General Employee of the Attorney General Renee Robinson, Assistant Director, SBI
Attorney General Representative recommended by the Sheriffs’ Association Sheriff Dewey Jones , Person County
Chief Justice, Supreme Court Director or employee of the Administrative Office of the Courts Basil McVey, Chief Information Officer, AOC
Chief Justice, Supreme Court Clerk of the Superior Court Honorable Mike McArthur, Chowan County
Chief Justice, Supreme Court Judge, trial court of the General Court of Justice Honorable Henry “Chip” Hight, Jr., Superior Court Judge,
District 9
Chief Justice, Supreme Court Judge, trial court of the General Court of Justice Honorable H. Thomas Jarrell, Jr., District Court Judge, Judicial
District 18
Chief Justice, Supreme Court District Attorney Al Williams, Sr. Assistant District Attorney, Judicial District 28
Chief Justice, Supreme Court Magistrate Eric Van Vleet, Durham County
State Chief Information Officer Appointment by the State Chief Information Officer George Bakolia, Deputy State Chief Information Officer
NC Chapter of Public Safety
Communications Officials
International, President
Active member of the NC Chapter of Public Safety Communications Officials
International
Steve Lingerfelt, Information Technology Director, City of High
Point
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 12
DNA Expunction
Background
The Statute
Since February 1, 2011 the North Carolina DNA Database has been in effect. (§ 15A-266.3A)
This Act requires defendants arrested for certain felony offenses to provide DNA samples at
arrest rather than waiting for conviction. These samples are collected by local Law Enforcement
while fingerprinting defendants at arrest. These samples are forwarded to the SBI to be
analyzed and added to the DNA Database. They are then to be used to identify guilty parties as
well as exonerate the innocent. If the defendant is later found not guilty, or pleads guilty to a
misdemeanor not covered by this statute then the SBI is directed to destroy the sample. (Unless
other grounds exist to allow them to keep the sample: i.e. the defendant’s DNA was taken
pursuant to a previous felony conviction)
The Problem for District Attorneys
15A-266(3A) requires that in cases where the defendant has been found not guilty, case
dismissed or never charged the Defendant shall have his DNA sample expunged from the DNA
Database. The statute directs that that the local District Attorney notify the SBI when DNA
should be expunged from the Database. There are several major problems with this
procedure.
1. There is nothing in the current Statute that requires local Law Enforcement and the SBI to
notify the District Attorney that a sample has ever been taken or entered into the DNA
Database.
2. District Attorneys have no supervisory relationship with either of these agencies and in fact
the SBI is supervised by the Attorney General’s office.
3. There is no automated system that currently exists or can be created to assist the District
Attorneys in determining whether a sample was collected or whether the SBI already has
previous samples in its Database. Instead, numerous phone calls and legwork are required to
determine these issues even before analyzing whether the Defendant’s final conviction status
precludes his sample from being kept in the Database.
4. Currently, 26 States collect DNA from either all felony arrestees or certain ones such as North
Carolina. Only 1 State in addition to North Carolina places this burden on their prosecutors.
5. While it may have been contemplated that this process could be automated the District
Attorneys and AOC have not been able to achieve this goal despite great effort for several good
reasons including; complicated arrest scenarios involving one DNA sample taken for more than
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 13
one offense at the time of arrest and different dispositions of those cases on different dates.
Each determination requires human interaction and cannot be computer driven.
6. No additional DA staff or technology staff was provided for in this statute and the
requirements of this statute will delay regular and automated full discovery which the General
Assembly required in all felony cases.
The Solution
The original DNA Database bill put the burden on the Defendant or his counsel to request
expunction if they believed the defendant qualified under the law. There are several good
reasons for this approach.
1. No middleman. The District Attorney, who has no control over any sample taken is out of the
equation and the defendant only has to deal with 1 State agency to get their sample removed.
2. No other criminal expunction statute under NCGS 15A puts the burden on the DA to request
that a case or charge be expunged. The defendant, the person who is in the best position to
know whether he qualifies must start the expunction process.
3. Most States follow this approach and the original Bill placed the burden on the Defendant and
the SBI when it was initially introduced.
Survey of Other States
What States collect DNA on arrest and who is responsible for expunging DNA if applicable?
ALABAMA: Collects DNA Code of Ala. § 36-18-25
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
Upon the reversal of conviction, the director shall be authorized and empowered to
expunge DNA records upon request of the person from whom the sample was taken.
Code of Ala. § 36-18-26
ALASKA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(i) The Department of Public Safety shall destroy the material in the system
relating to a person or minor on the written request of the person or minor,
if the request is accompanied by a certified copy of a court order making
the written findings required by this subsection.
(ii) Alaska Stat. § 44.41.035
ARIZONA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 14
J. If the conviction or adjudication of a person who is subject to this section or section 8-
238 is overturned on appeal or post conviction relief and a final mandate has been
issued, on petition of the person to the superior court in the county in which the
conviction occurred, the court shall order that the person’s deoxyribonucleic acid profile
resulting from that conviction or adjudication be expunged from the Arizona
deoxyribonucleic acid identification system established by section 41-2418 unless the
person has been convicted or adjudicated delinquent of another offense that would
requires the person to submit to deoxyribonucleic acid testing pursuant to this section.
A.R.S. § 13-610
ARKANSAS: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(a) (1) Any person whose DNA record has been included in the State DNA
Database and whose DNA sample is stored in the State DNA Databank may apply
to any circuit court for removal and destruction of the DNA record and DNA sample
on the grounds that the adjudication of guilt that resulted in the inclusion of the
person’s DNA record in the database or the inclusion of the person’s DNA sample
in the databank has been reversed and the case dismissed.
(b) A.C.A. § 12-12-1113
CALIFORNIA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(b) Pursuant to subdivision (a), a person who has no past or present qualifying offense,
and for whom there otherwise is no legal basis for retaining the specimen or sample or
searchable profile, may make a written request to have his or her specimen and sample
destroyed and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program if:
Cal Pen Code § 299
COLORADO: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(2) A person who qualifies for expungement under subsection (1) of this section may
submit a written request for expungement to the Colorado bureau of investigation. The
request shall include the items listed in this subsection (2) and may include any
additional information that may assist the bureau in locating the records of arrest or
charges or the biological substance sample or testing results. The following information
shall be included in the submitted request:
C.R.S. 16-23-105
CONNECTICUT: Do not collect DNA on arrest
DELAWARE: Do not collect DNA on arrest
FLORIDA: Collects DNA
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 15
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(16) Procedures for removal. –Unless the department determines that a person is
otherwise required by law to submit a DNA sample for inclusion in the statewide DNA
database, the department shall, upon receipt and completion of such verification of the
information noted below as may be required, promptly remove from the statewide DNA
database the DNA analysis and any DNA biological samples that may have been
retained of a person included therein:
(a) On the basis of a conviction for a qualifying offense specified in
subparagraph (2) (g) 2., if the department receives, from the person seeking
removal of DNA information from the statewide DNA database, for each
qualifying offense, a certified copy of a final court order establishing that such
conviction has been overturned on direct appeal or set aside in a post conviction
proceeding; or
Fla. Stat. § 943.325
GEORGIA: Do not collect DNA on arrest
HAWAII: Do not collect DNA on arrest
IDAHO: Do not collect DNA on arrest
ILLINOIS: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(1) A petitioner may petition the circuit court to expunge the records of his or her arrests
and charges not initiated by arrest when:
(2) 20 ILCS 2630/5.2
INDIANA: Do not collect DNA on arrest
IOWA: Do not collect DNA on arrest
KANSAS: Collects DNA
Requires the Defendant to request Expungement
(4) If a court later determines that there was not probable cause for the arrest, charge or
placement in custody or the charges are otherwise dismissed, and the case is not
appealed, the Kansas bureau of investigation, upon petition by such person, shall
expunge both the DNA sample and the profile record of such person.
(5) If a conviction against a person, who is required to submit such specimen or sample,
is expunged or a verdict of acquittal with regard to such person is returned, the Kansas
bureau of investigation shall, upon petition by such person, expunge both the DNA
sample and the profile record of such person.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 16
K.S.A. § 21-2511
KENTUCKY: Do not collect DNA on arrest
LOUISIANA: Collects DNA
Require the Defendant to request Expungement
A. A person whose DNA record or profile has been included in the data base or data
bank pursuant to this Chapter may request that his record or profile be removed on the
following grounds:
(1) The arrest on which the authority for including his DNA record or profile was
based does not result in a conviction or plea agreement resulting in a conviction.
(2) The conviction on which the authority for including his DNA record or profile
was based has been reversed and the case dismissed.
La. R.S. 15:614
MAINE: Do not collect DNA on arrest
MARYLAND: Collects DNA
As of Dec. 2013, will require the Defendant to request Expungement
(A) In general. – An individual whose DNA record or profile is included in the statewide
DNA data base system and whose DNA sample is stored in the statewide DNA
repository may request that information be expunged on the grounds that the conviction
that resulted in the inclusion meets the expungement criteria specified in § 10-105 or §
10-106 of the Criminal Procedure Article.
Md. PUBLIC SAFETY Code Ann. § 2-511
MASSACHUSETTS: Do not collect DNA on arrest
MICHIGAN: Collects DNA
Does not put burden on State to expunge DNA, but State can request it if no
longer necessary for investigation or prosecution
(a) The department receives a written request for disposal from the investigating police
agency or prosecutor indicating that the sample or profile is no longer necessary for a
criminal investigation or criminal prosecution.
(b) The department receives a written request for disposal and a certified copy of a final
court order establishing that the charge for which the sample was obtained has been
dismissed or has resulted in an acquittal or that no charge was filed within the applicable
limitations period
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 17
. MCLS § 28.176
MINNESOTA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(a) The bureau shall destroy the biological specimen and return all records to a person
who submitted a biological specimen under subdivision 1 but who was found not guilty
of a felony. Upon the request of a person who submitted a biological specimen under
subdivision 1 but where the charge against the person was later dismissed, the bureau
shall destroy the person’s biological specimen and return all records to the individual.
Minn. Stat. § 299C.105
MISSISSIPPI: Does not collect DNA on arrest
MISSOURI: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(1) A person whose DNA record or DNA profile has been included in the state DNA
database in accordance with this section, section 488.5050, and sections 650.050,
650.052, and 650.100 may request expungement on the grounds that the conviction
has been reversed, or the guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere on which the
authority for including that person’s DNA record or DNA profile was based has been
set aside.
§ 650.055 R.S.Mo.
MONTANA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
NEBRASKA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
NEVADA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Does not collect DNA on arrest
NEW JERSEY: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(1) Any person whose DNA record or profile has been included in the State DNA
database and whose DNA sample is stored in the State DNA databank may apply for
expungement on the grounds that the conviction that resulted in the inclusion of the
person’s DNA record or profile in the State database or the inclusion of the person’s
DNA sample in the State databank has been reversed and the case dismissed. The
person, either individually or through an attorney, may apply to the court for
expungement of the record. A copy of the application for expungement shall be served
on the prosecutor for the county in which the conviction was obtained not less than 20
days prior to the date of the hearing on the application. A certified copy of the order
reversing and dismissing the conviction shall be attached to an order expunging the
DNA record or profile insofar as its inclusion rests upon that conviction.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 18
N.J. Stat. § 53:1-20.25
NEW MEXICO: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement of arrest information, no specific
DNA expungement statute
1. A person may petition the department to expunge arrest information on the person’s
state record or federal bureau of investigation record if the arrest was for a
misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor offense and the arrest was not for a crime of
moral turpitude. If the department cannot locate a final disposition after contacting
the arresting law enforcement agency, the administrative office of the courts and the
administrative office of the district attorneys, the department shall expunge the arrest
information.
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 29-3-8.1
NEW YORK: Does not collect DNA on arrest
NORTH CAROLINA:
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-266.3
NORTH DAKOTA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
1. An individual whose DNA profile has been included in the database under this chapter
may petition the district court to seal the court record on the grounds that the arrest that
led to the inclusion of the DNA profile has not resulted in a felony charge within one
year; has been resolved by a dismissal, acquittal, or misdemeanor conviction; has not
resulted in a felony conviction; or the conviction on which the authority for including the
DNA profile was based has been reversed or the case dismissed.
N.D. Cent. Code, § 31-13-07
OHIO: Collects DNA
ORC Ann. 2901.07
OKLAHOMA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
OREGON: Does not collect DNA on arrest
PENNSYLVANIA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
RHODE ISLAND: Does not collect DNA on arrest
SOUTH CAROLINA: Collects DNA
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 19
Requires the State to start expungement process
(B) The solicitor in the county in which the person was charged must notify SLED when
the person becomes eligible to have his DNA record and DNA profile expunged. Upon
receiving this notification, SLED must begin the expungement procedure.
S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-660
SOUTH DAKOTA: Collects DNA
Does not put burden on State to expunge DNA
Upon receipt of written request for expungement; certified copy of the final court order
reversing and dismissing the conviction or delinquency adjudication; and any other
information necessary to ascertain the validity of the request, the South Dakota State
Forensic Laboratory shall expunge all DNA records and identifiable information in the
database pertaining to the person and destroy the DNA sample from the person, unless
the South Dakota State Forensic Laboratory determines that the person has otherwise
become obligated to submit a DNA sample.
S.D. Codified Laws § 23-5A-29
TENNESSEE: Collects DNA
Requires the Clerk to notify TBI of final disposition and TBI to destroy DNA if
applicable
1. The clerk of the court in which the charges against a person described in subdivision
I (1) are disposed of shall notify the Tennessee bureau of investigation of final
disposition of the criminal proceedings. If the charge for which the sample was taken
is dismissed or the defendant is acquitted at trial, then the bureau shall destroy the
sample and all records of the sample; provided, that there is no other pending
qualifying warrant or capiases for an arrest or felony conviction that would otherwise
require that the sample remain in the data bank.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-321
TEXAS: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(1) The director shall expunge a DNA record of an individual from a DNA database if the
person:
(2) notifies the director in writing that the DNA record has been ordered to be expunged
under this section or Chapter 55, Code of Criminal Procedure, and provides the
director with a certified copy of the court order that expunges the DNA record; or
Tex. Gov’t Code § 411.151
UTAH: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 20
(6) A person whose DNA specimen has been obtained under this part may, personally or
through a legal representative, submit to the court a motion for a court order requiring
the destruction of the person’s DNA specimen and any criminal identification record
created in connection with that specimen if:
Utah Code Ann. § 53-10-406
AND Bureau if:
(i) destroy a DNA specimen obtained under this part if criminal charges have not been
filed within 90 days after booking for an alleged offense under Subsection 53-10-
403(2)I; and
Utah Code Ann. § 53-10-406
VERMONT: Collects DNA
Requires the Court or Governor to start expungement process
(b) If any of the circumstances in subsection (a) of this section occur, the court with
jurisdiction or, as the case may be, the governor, shall so notify the department, and the
person’s DNA record in the state DNA database and CODIS and the person’s DNA
sample in the state DNA data bank shall be removed and destroyed. The laboratory
shall purge the DNA record and all other identifiable information from the state DNA
database and CODIS and destroy the DNA sample stored in the state DNA data bank. If
the person has more than one entry in the state DNA database, CODIS, or the state
DNA data bank, only the entry related to the dismissed case shall be deleted. The
department shall notify the person upon completing its responsibilities under this
subsection, by certified mail addressed to the person’s last known address.
20 V.S.A. § 1940
VIRGINIA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
A person whose DNA profile has been included in the data bank pursuant to § 19.2-
310.2 may request expungement on the grounds that the felony conviction on which the
authority for including his DNA profile was based has been reversed and the case
dismissed. The Department of Forensic Science shall purge all records and identifiable
information in the data bank pertaining to the person and destroy all samples from the
person upon receipt of (i) a written request for expungement pursuant to this section and
(ii) a certified copy of the court order reversing and dismissing the conviction.
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-310.7
WASHINGTON: Does not collect DNA on arrest
WEST VIRGINIA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 21
WISCONSIN: Does not collect DNA on arrest
WYOMING: Does not collect DNA on arrest
Other Sources:
DNA Saves: 26 States Have Passed the Law, http://www.katieslaw.org/ .
State of California DNA Expungement Form
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
STREAMLINED DNA EXPUNGEMENT APPLICATION FORM DLE 244
(Orig. 02/2011)
PAGE 1 of 3
REQUEST TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CAL-DNA DATA BANK
PROGRAM
TO EXPUNGE MY STATE DNA DATABASE PROFILE AND REMOVE MY SAMPLE
I,
(Insert Name) SET FORTH UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY AS FOLLOWS:
1. My name is (Insert legal name and other name(s) used), and my address, or an address
that I can be reached at, is:
2. My email address is: (Insert email address if you have one and would like to be
contacted by email)
3. My Social Security Number (SSN) is; my Date of Birth is; and my Driver’s License Number (or
State Identification Card Number) is.
4. My CA Identification & Information (CII) Number is (Insert number if known).
5. On or about (Date/Year), I provided a DNA sample for inclusion in the CAL-DNA Data Bank
Program (Penal Code section 295 et seq.) to a law enforcement agency in County, under the
name I entered above.
(Name of County where sample taken; Insert prison name if taken at a prison)
6. To the best of my knowledge, the crime for which my DNA database sample was taken was:
(Describe or name crime if known).
7. I contend I am not required by law to provide a DNA Data Bank Sample, and there is no
legal basis for the California Department of Justice to retain my DNA sample, or
searchable DNA profile.
8. I certify to the best of my knowledge that all of the following statements are true:
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 22
1. I have no past or present criminal offense that qualifies me for inclusion in the CAL-DNA
Data Bank Program.
[Note: (1) If you provided a DNA sample after you were validly convicted of a felony, the
fact you subsequently had that felony conviction expunged under Penal Code section
1203.4, or reduced to a misdemeanor, etc., under Penal Code section 17, does not
entitle you to also have your DNA profile expunged or sample removed from the Data
Bank. (See, Cal. Pen. Code, § 299 (f).);
a. If you provided a DNA sample after a conviction for a misdemeanor and had any
past felony conviction at that time, your sample is not eligible for expungement or
removal from the Data Bank. (See, Cal. Pen. Code, § 296.1(a) (2) & (3).).]
b. I have no past or present duty to register as a sex or arson offender. [Note:
Termination of the duty to register does not qualify as a reason for sample
expungement. (See, Pen. Code, § 299I.).]
c. I did not provide a DNA sample as part of a plea bargain.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
STREAMLINED DNA EXPUNGEMENT APPLICATION FORM DLE 244
(Orig. 02/2011)
PAGE 2 of 3
9. I request that the California Department of Justice destroy my DNA sample and expunge my
searchable
DNA database profile as provided for in Penal Code section 299, on the following grounds
(CHECK ONE AND ATTACH THE DOCUMENTATION DESCRIBED):
a. No qualifying felony charges were or will be filed after my arrest. [Attach Letter in
Support of Expungement from a District Attorney or prosecutor, providing the case
name and number, and certifying that no charge(s) will be filed based on the arrest;
or attach a certified or file stamped copy of a complaint reflecting that only
misdemeanor charge(s) were filed based on the arrest.]
b. The felony charge(s) which formed the basis of my DNA sample collection was
dismissed. [Attach a certified or file-stamped copy of the court docket or minute order
dismissing the charge(s), or a trial court’s Clerk Certificate verifying this fact.]
c. The conviction which formed the basis of my DNA collection has been reversed and
the case dismissed. [Attach a certified or file-stamped copy of the court order(s) or
opinion reversing the conviction and dismissing the charge(s).]
d. I have been found factually innocent under Penal Code section 851.8 or Welfare and
Institutions
Code section 781.5 of the offense which qualified me for inclusion in the CAL-DNA Data
Bank Program. [Attach a certified or file-stamped copy of the court docket or minute
order making this finding.]
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 23
e. I was acquitted or found not guilty of the offense which qualified me for inclusion in the
CAL-DNA Data Bank Program. [Attach a certified or file-stamped copy of the court
docket or minute order stating this finding.]
f. My previously sustained delinquency petition alleging an offense that would be a
felony, if committed by an adult, has been reversed and dismissed. [Attach a certified
or file-stamped copy of the court order(s) or opinion reversing the conviction and
dismissing the charge(s).]
10. Additional information supporting my request for DNA sample expungement is as follows:
11. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on: at, State of
(Date) (City) (State)
PRINT NAME:
SIGNATURE (person requesting DNA profile expungement and sample removal)
MAIL THE REQUEST FOR DNA SAMPLE EXPUNGEMENT TO:
Department of Justice CAL-DNA Data Bank Program
Attn. EXPUNGEMENT REQUESTS
1001 West Cutting Blvd., Suite 110
Richmond, CA 94804
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
STREAMLINED DNA EXPUNGEMENT APPLICATION FORM DLE 244
(Orig. 02/2011)
PAGE 3 of 3
Privacy Notice
The information requested on this form is being requested by the State of California,
Department of Justice (DOJ), Division of Law Enforcement, CAL-DNA Data Bank Program, for
the purpose of determining eligibility for DNA sample/profile removal and expungement through
use of DOJ’s streamlined procedures. The maintenance of the information collected on this form
is authorized by Penal Code Section 299. All information requested on this form is voluntary.
However, failure to provide the requested information/documentation (e.g. identity, legal status
and criminal history), as applicable, to enable DOJ to make a determination regarding a
sample/profile’s eligibility for removal/expungement, will likely result in denial of the DNA
sample/profile removal and expungement request. Your information provided on this form may
be disclosed to federal, state and/or local law enforcement agencies, probation and parole
officers, your attorney, and attorneys for the Department of Justice, and/or courts. Pursuant to
Civil Code Section 1798.30 et seq., individuals have the right [with some exceptions] to access
records containing the personal information about themselves that are maintained by the
agency. The CAL-DNA Data Bank Program is the agency official responsible for the system of
records that maintains the information provided on this form. For more information regarding the
location of your records and the categories of any persons who use the information in those
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 24
records, you may contact the CAL-DNA Data Bank Program, Department of Justice, at 1001
West Cutting Blvd., Suite 110, Richmond, CA 94804, or via telephone at (510) 620-3300.
North Carolina HB1403
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2009
SESSION LAW 2010-94
HOUSE BILL 1403
*H1403-v-3*
AN ACT TO REQUIRE THAT A DNA SAMPLE BE TAKEN FROM ANY PERSON ARRESTED
FOR COMMITTING CERTAIN OFFENSES, AND TO AMEND THE STATUTES THAT
PROVIDE FOR A DNA SAMPLE UPON CONVICTION.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as “The DNA Database Act of 2010.”
SECTION 2. G.S. 15A-266.2 reads as rewritten:
“§ 15A-266.2. Definitions. As used in this Article, unless another meaning is specified or
the context clearly requires otherwise, the following terms have the meanings specified:
(1) “CODIS” means the FBI’s national DNA identification index system that allows the
storage and exchange of DNA records submitted by federal, State and local forensic
DNA laboratories. The term “CODIS” is derived from Combined DNA Index System.
System (NDIS) administered and operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(1a) “Custodial Agency” means the governmental entity in possession of evidence
collected as part of a criminal investigation or prosecution. This term includes a
central evidence storage facility operated by a State agency.
(2) “DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA is located in the nucleus of cells and
provides an individual’s personal genetic blueprint. DNA encodes genetic information
that is the basis of human heredity and forensic identification.
(3) “DNA Record” means DNA identification information stored in the State DNA
Database or CODIS for the purpose of generating investigative leads or supporting
statistical interpretation of DNA test results. The DNA record is the result obtained
from the DNA typing tests. Analysis. The DNA record is comprised of the
characteristics of a DNA sample which are of value in establishing the identity of
individuals. The results of all DNA identification tests analyses on an individual’s
DNA sample are also collectively referred to as the DNA profile of an individual.
(4) “DNA Sample” in this Article means a blood, buccal, cheek swabs, or any other
biological sample containing cells provided by any person with respect to convicted
of offenses covered by this Article or submitted to the SBI Laboratory State Bureau
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 25
of Investigation pursuant to this Article for analysis pursuant to a criminal
investigation or storage or both.
(5) “FBI” means the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(5a) “NDIS” means the National DNA Index System that is the national DNA database
system of DNA profile records which that meet federal quality assurance and privacy
standards.
(6) “SBI” means the State Bureau of Investigation. The SBI is responsible for the policy
management policy, management, and administration of the State DNA identification
record system to support law enforcement, and for liaison with the FBI regarding the
State’s participation in CODIS enforcement and other criminal justice agencies.
(7) “State DNA Database” means the SBI’s DNA identification record system to support
law enforcement. It is administered by the SBI and provides DNA records to the FBI for
storage and maintenance in CODIS. The SBI’s DNA Page 2 Session Law 2010-94
SL2010-0094 Database system is the collective capability provided by computer
software and procedures administered by the SBI to store and maintain DNA records
related to forensic casework, to convicted offenders required to provide a DNA sample
under this Article, and to anonymous DNA records used for research or quality control.
To: forensic casework; convicted offenders and arrestees required to provide a DNA
sample under this Article; persons required to register as sex offenders under G.S. 14-
208.7; unidentified persons or body parts; missing persons; relatives of missing persons;
and anonymous DNA profiles used for forensic validation, forensic protocol
development, or quality control purposes or establishment of a population statistics
database for use by criminal justice agencies.
(8) “State DNA Databank” means the repository of DNA samples collected under the
provisions of this Article.
(9) “Criminal Justice Agency” means an agency or institution of a federal, State, or local
government, other than the office of the public defender, that performs as part of its
principal function, activities relating to the apprehension, investigation, prosecution,
adjudication, incarceration, supervision, or rehabilitation of criminal offenders.
(10) “Arrestee” means any person arrested for an offense in G.S. 15A-266.3A (d) or I.
(11) “Conviction” includes a conviction by a jury or a court, a guilty plea, a plea of nolo
contendere, or a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity or mental disease or defect.”
SECTION 3. G.S. 15A-266.3 reads as rewritten:
“§ 15A-266.3. Procedural compatibility with the FBI establishment of State DNA database and
databank. The DNA identification system as established by the SBI shall be compatible with the
procedures specified by the FBI, including use of comparable test procedures, laboratory
equipment, supplies, and computer software. There is established under the administration of
the SBI, the State DNA Database and State DNA Databank. The SBI shall provide DNA records
to the FBI for the searching of DNA records nationwide and storage and maintenance by
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 26
CODIS. The State DNA Databank shall serve as the repository for DNA samples obtained
pursuant to this Article. The State DNA Database shall be compatible with the procedures
specified by the FBI, including use of comparable test procedures, laboratory and computer
equipment, supplies and computer platform and software. The State DNA Database shall have
the capability provided by computer software and procedures administered by the SBI to store
and maintain DNA records related to all of the following:
(1) Crime scene evidence and forensic casework.
(2) Arrestees, offenders, and persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, who are
required to provide a DNA sample under this Article.
(3) Persons required to register as sex offenders under G.S. 14-208.7.
(4) Unidentified persons or body parts.
(5) Missing persons.
(6) Relatives of missing persons.
(7) Anonymous DNA profiles used for forensic validation, forensic protocol development,
or quality control purposes or establishment of a population statistics database, for use
by criminal justice agencies.”
SECTION 4. Article 13 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes is amended by
adding a new section to read:
“§ 15A-266.3A. DNA sample required for DNA analysis upon arrest for certain offenses.
(a)Unless a DNA sample has previously been obtained by lawful process and the DNA
record stored in the State DNA Database, and that record and sample has not been
expunged pursuant to any provision of law, a DNA sample for DNA analysis and testing
shall be obtained from any person who is arrested for committing an offense described in
subsection (d) or I of this section.
(b)The arresting law enforcement officer shall obtain, or cause to be obtained, a DNA
sample from an arrested person at the time of arrest, or when fingerprinted. However, if the
person is arrested without a warrant, then the DNA sample shall not be taken until a
probable cause determination has been made pursuant to G.S. 15A-511(c)(1). The DNA
sample shall be SL2010-0094 Session Law 2010-94 Page 3 by cheek swab unless a court
order authorizes that a DNA blood sample be obtained. If a DNA blood sample is taken, it
shall comply with the requirements of G.S. 15A-266.6(b). The arresting law enforcement
officer shall forward, or cause to be forwarded, the DNA sample to the appropriate
laboratory for DNA analysis and testing.
(b1) At the time a DNA sample is taken pursuant to this section, the person obtaining the
DNA sample shall record, on a form promulgated by the SBI, the date and time the sample
was taken, the name of the person taking the DNA sample, the name and address of the
person from whom the sample was taken, and the offense or offenses for which the person
was arrested. This record shall be maintained in the case file and shall be available to the
prosecuting district attorney for the purpose of completing the requirements of subsection
(g1) of this section.
(b2) After taking a DNA sample from an arrested person required to provide a DNA sample
pursuant to this section, the person taking the DNA sample shall provide the arrested
person with a written notice of the procedures for seeking an expunction of the DNA sample
pursuant to subsections (f), (g), (g1), (g2), and (g3) of this section. The Department of
Justice shall provide the written notice required by this subsection.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 27
(b3) I The DNA record of identification characteristics resulting from the DNA testing and
the DNA sample itself shall be stored and maintained by the SBI in the State DNA
Databank pursuant to this Article.
(b4) This section shall apply to a person arrested for violating any one of the following
offenses in Chapter 14 of the General Statutes:
(1) G.S. 14-17, First and Second Degree Murder.
(2) G.S. 14-18, Manslaughter.
(3) Any offense in Article 7A, Rape and Other Sex Offenses.
(4) G.S. 14-32, Felonious assault with deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflicting
serious injury; G.S. 14-32.4(a), Assault inflicting serious bodily injury; G.S. 14-34.2,
Assault with a firearm or other deadly weapon upon governmental officers or employees,
company police officers, or campus police officers; G.S. 14-34.5, Assault with a firearm
on a law enforcement, probation, or parole officer or on a person employed at a State or
local detention facility; G.S. 14-34.6, Assault or affray on a firefighter, an emergency
medical technician, medical responder, emergency department nurse, or emergency
department physician; and G.S. 14-34.7, Assault inflicting serious injury on a law
enforcement, probation, or parole officer or on a person employed at a State or local
detention facility.
(5) Any offense in Article 10, Kidnapping and Abduction, or Article 10A, Human
Trafficking.
(6) G.S. 14-51, First and second degree burglary; G.S. 14-53, Breaking out of dwelling
house burglary; G.S. 14-54.1, Breaking or entering a place of religious worship; and G.S.
14-57, Burglary with explosives.
(7) Any offense in Article 15, Arson.
(8) G.S. 14-87, Armed robbery.
(9) Any offense which would require the person to register under the provisions of Article
27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes, Sex Offender and Public Protection
Registration Programs.
(10) G.S. 14-196.3, Cyber stalking.
(11) G.S. 14-277.3A, Stalking.
I This section shall also apply to a person arrested for attempting, solicitation of another
to commit, conspiracy to commit, or aiding and abetting another to commit, any of the
violations included in subsection (d) of this section.
(f) The State Bureau of Investigation shall remove a person’s DNA record, and destroy
any DNA biological samples that may have been retained, from the State DNA Database
and DNA Databank if both of the following are determined pursuant to subsection (g) of
this section:
(1) As to the charge, or all charges, resulting from the arrest upon which a DNA
sample is required under this section, a court or the district attorney has taken
action resulting in any one of the following:
a. The charge has been dismissed.
b. The person has been acquitted of the charge. Page 4 Session Law
2010-94 SL2010-0094
c. The defendant is convicted of a lesser-included misdemeanor offense
that is not an offense included in subsection (d) or I of this section.
d. No charge was filed within the statute of limitations, if any.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 28
e. No conviction has occurred, at least three years has passed since the
date of arrest, and no active prosecution is occurring.
(2) The person’s DNA record is not required to be in the State DNA Database
under some other provision of law, or is not required to be in the State DNA
Database based upon an offense from a different transaction or occurrence from
the one which was the basis for the person’s arrest.
(g) Prior to June 1, 2012, upon the occurrence of one of the events in sub-subdivision d.
or e. of subdivision (1) of subsection (f) of this section, the defendant or the defendant’s
counsel shall provide the prosecuting district attorney with a signed request form,
promulgated by the Administrative Office of the Courts, requesting that the defendant’s
DNA record be expunged from the DNA Database and that any biological samples in the
DNA Databank be destroyed. On or after June 1, 2012, upon the occurrence of one of
the events in sub-subdivision d. or e. of subdivision (1) of subsection (f) of this section,
no request form shall be required and the prosecuting district attorney shall initiate the
procedure provided in subsection (g1) of this section.
(g1) Prior to June 1, 2012, within 30 days of the receipt of the form required by
subsection (g) of this section or the occurrence of one of the events in sub-subdivision
a., b., or c. of subdivision (1) of subsection (f) of this section; and on or after June 1,
2012, within 30 days of the occurrence of one of the events in subdivision (1) of
subsection (f) of this section, the prosecuting district attorney shall determine if a DNA
sample was taken pursuant to this section, and if so, shall:
(1) Verify and indicate the facts of the qualifying event on a verification form
promulgated by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
(2) Include the last known address of the defendant, as reflected in the court
files, on the verification form.
(3) Sign the verification form or, if the defendant was acquitted or the charges
were dismissed by the court, obtain the signature of a judge.
(4) Transmit the verification form to the SBI.
(g2) Within 30 days of receipt of the verification form, the SBI shall:
(1) Determine whether the requirement of subdivision (2) of subsection (f) of this
section has been met.
(2) If the requirement has been met, remove the defendant’s DNA record and
samples as required by subsection (f) of this section.
(3) Mail to the defendant, at the address specified in the verification form, a
notice either:
a. Documenting expunction of the DNA record and destruction of the DNA
sample, or
b. Notifying the defendant that the DNA record and sample do not qualify
for expunction pursuant to subsection (f) of this section.(g3) The
defendant may file a motion with the court to review the denial of the
defendant’s request or the failure of either the district attorney or the SBI
to act within the prescribed time period.
(h) Any identification, warrant, probable cause to arrest, or arrest based upon a
database match of the defendant’s DNA sample which occurs after the expiration of the
statutory periods prescribed for expunction of the defendant’s DNA sample, shall be
invalid and 28inadmissible in the prosecution of the defendant for any criminal offense.
(i) Notwithstanding subsection
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 29
(f) Of this section, the SBI is not required to destroy or remove an item of physical
evidence obtained from a sample if evidence relating to another person would thereby
be destroyed. (j) The SBI shall adopt procedures to comply with this section.”
SECTION 5. G.S. 15A-266.4 reads as rewritten:
“§ 15A-266.4. Blood sample DNA sample required for DNA analysis upon conviction or
finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(a) Unless a DNA sample has previously been obtained by lawful process and a record
stored in the State DNA database, Database, and that sample has record and
sample have not SL2010-0094 Session Law 2010-94 Page 5 been expunged
pursuant to G.S. 15A-148, on or after December 1, 2003, a person any provision of
law, a person:
(1) Who is convicted of any of the crimes listed in subsection (b) of this section or
who is found not guilty of any of these crimes by reason of insanity and
committed to a mental health facility in accordance with G.S. 15A-1321G.S. 15A-
1321, shall have provide a DNA sample drawn upon intake to jail, prison, or the
mental health facility. In addition, every person convicted on or after December 1,
2003, of any of these crimes, but who is not sentenced to a term of confinement,
shall provide a DNA sample as a condition of the sentence.
(2) A person who has been convicted and incarcerated as a result of a conviction
of one or more of these crimes prior to December 1, 2003, the crimes listed in
subsection (b) of this section, or who was found not guilty of any of these crimes
by reason of insanity and committed to a mental health facility in accordance with
G.S. 15A-1321 before December 1, 2003,G.S. 15A-1321, shall have provide a
DNA sample drawn before parole or release from the penal system or before
release from the mental health facility.
(b) Crimes covered by this Article include all of the following:
(1) All felonies.
(2) G.S. 14-32.1 – Assaults on handicapped persons.
(3) G.S. 14-277.3A or former G.S. 14-277.3 – Stalking.
(4) G.S. 14-27.5A – Sexual battery.
(5) All offenses described in G.S. 15A-266.3A.”
SECTION 6. G.S. 15A-266.5 reads as rewritten: “§ 15A-266.5. Tests to be performed on blood
sample.DNA sample.
(a) The tests to be performed on each blood DNA sample are:
(1) To analyze and type only the genetic markers that are used for identification
purposes contained in or derived from the DNA.
(2) For law enforcement identification purposes.
(3) For research and administrative purposes, including
a. Development of a population database when personal identifying
information is removed.
b. To support identification research and protocol development of forensic
DNA analysis methods.
c. For quality control purposes.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 30
d. To assist in the recovery or identification of human remains from mass
disasters or for other humanitarian purposes, including identification of
missing persons.
(b) The DNA record of identification characteristics resulting from the DNA testing shall
be stored and maintained by the SBI in the State DNA Database. The DNA sample
itself will be stored and maintained by the SBI in the State DNA Databank.
(c) I The SBI shall report annually to the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental
Operations and to the Joint Legislative Corrections, Crime Control and Juvenile
Justice Oversight Committee, on or before February 1, with information for the
previous calendar year, which shall include: a summary of the operations and
expenditures relating to the DNA Database and DNA Databank; the number of DNA
records from arrestees entered; the number of DNA records from arrestees that have
been expunged; and the number of DNA arrestee matches or hits that occurred with
an unknown sample, and how many of those have led to an arrest and conviction;
and how many letters notifying defendants that a record and sample have been
expunged, along with the number of days it took to complete the expunction and
notification process, from the date of the receipt of the verification form from the
State.
(d) The Department of Justice, in consultation with the Administrative Office of the
Courts and the Conference of District Attorneys, shall study, develop, and
recommend an automated procedure to facilitate the process of expunging DNA
samples and records taken pursuant to G.S. 15A-266.3A, and shall report to the
Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations, the Joint Legislative
Corrections, Crime Control and Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee, and the
Courts Commission, on or before February 1, 2011.”
SECTION 7. G.S. 15A-266.6 reads as rewritten: Page 6 Session Law 2010-94 SL2010-0094 “§
15A-266.6. Procedures for withdrawal of blood sample for obtaining DNA analysis. Sample for
analysis; refusal to provide sample.
1. Each DNA sample required to be drawn provided pursuant to G.S. 15A-266.4 from
persons who are incarcerated shall be drawn obtained at the place of incarceration.
DNA
Samples from persons who are not sentenced to a term of confinement shall be drawn
obtained immediately following sentencing. The sentencing court shall order any person
not sentenced to a term of confinement, who has not previously provided a DNA sample
pursuant to any provision of law requiring a sample and whose DNA record and sample
have not been expunged pursuant to law, to report immediately following sentencing to
the location designated by the sheriff. If the sample cannot be taken immediately, the
sheriff shall inform the court of the date, time, and location at which the sample shall be
taken, and the court shall enter that date, time, and location into its order. A copy of the
court order indicating the date, time, and location the person is to appear to have a
sample taken shall be given to the sheriff. If a person not sentenced to a term of
confinement fails to appear immediately following sentencing or at the date, time, and
location designated in the court order, the sheriff shall inform the court of the failure to
appear and the court may issue an order to show cause pursuant to G.S. 5A-15 and
may issue an order for arrest pursuant to G.S. 5A-16. The defendant shall continue to be
subject to the court’s order to provide a DNA sample until such time as his or her DNA
sample is analyzed and a record is successfully entered into the State DNA Database.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 31
2. If, for any reason, the defendant provides a DNA blood sample instead of a cheek
swab, only a correctional health nurse technician, physician, registered professional
nurse, licensed practical nurse, laboratory technician, phlebotomist, or other health
care worker with phlebotomy training shall draw any the DNA blood sample to be
submitted for analysis. No civil liability shall attach to any person authorized to draw
blood by this section as a result of drawing blood from any person if the blood was
drawn according to recognized medical procedures. No person shall be relieved from
liability for negligence in the drawing of any obtaining a DNA sample by any method.
3. I The SBI shall provide to the sheriff the materials and supplies the materials,
supplies, and postage prepaid envelopes necessary to draw obtain a DNA sample
from a person not sentenced to a term of confinement. Required to provide a DNA
sample pursuant to this Article and to forward the DNA sample to the appropriate
laboratory for DNA analysis and testing. Any DNA sample drawn from a person not
sentenced to a term of confinement obtained pursuant to this Article, other than a
DNA sample obtained from a person who is incarcerated, shall be taken using the
materials and supplies provided by the SBI.”
SECTION 8. G.S. 15A-266.7 reads as rewritten: “§ 15A-266.7. Procedures for conducting DNA
analysis of blood DNA sample. The SBI shall adopt rules governing the procedures to be used
in the submission, identification, analysis, and storage of DNA samples and typing results of
DNA samples submitted under this Article. The DNA sample shall be securely stored in the
State Databank. The typing results shall be securely stored in the State Database. These
procedures shall also include quality assurance guidelines to insure that DNA identification
records meet standards and audit standards for laboratories which submit DNA records to the
State Database. Records of testing shall be retained on file at the SBI.
(a) The SBI shall:
(1) Adopt procedures to be used in the collection, security, submission,
identification, analysis, and storage of DNA samples and typing results of DNA
samples submitted under this Article. These procedures shall also include quality
assurance guidelines to insure that DNA identification records meet audit
standards for laboratories which submit DNA records to the State DNA
Database.
(2) Adopt Quality Assurance Guidelines for DNA Testing Laboratories and DNA
Data basing Laboratories that meet or exceed the quality assurance guidelines
established for such laboratories by the CODIS unit of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
4. DNA samples shall be securely stored in the State DNA Databank. The typing results
shall be securely stored in the State DNA Database.
5. I Records of testing shall be retained on file at the SBI.”
SECTION 9. G.S. 15A-266.8 reads as rewritten: SL2010-0094 Session Law 2010-94 Page 7
“§ 15A-266.8. DNA database exchange.
1. It shall be the duty of the SBI to receive DNA samples, to store, to analyze or to
contract out the DNA typing analysis to a qualified DNA laboratory that meets the
guidelines as established by the SBI, classify, and file the DNA record of
identification characteristic profiles of DNA samples submitted pursuant to G.S. 15A-
266.7 this Article and to make such information available as provided in this section.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 32
The SBI may contract out DNA typing analysis to a qualified DNA laboratory that
meets guidelines as established by the SBI. The results of the DNA profile of
individuals in the State Database shall be made available to local, State, or federal
law enforcement agencies, approved crime laboratories which serve these agencies,
or the district attorney’s office upon written or electronic request and in furtherance of
an official investigation of a criminal offense. These records shall also be available
upon receipt of a valid court order directing the SBI to release these results to
appropriate parties not listed above, when the court order is signed by a superior
court judge after a hearing. The SBI shall maintain a file of such court orders.
2. The SBI shall adopt rules governing the methods of obtaining information from the
State Database and CODIS and procedures for verification of the identity and
authority of the requester.
3. I The SBI shall create a separate population database comprised of blood DNA
samples obtained under this Article, after all personal identification is removed.
Nothing shall prohibit the SBI from sharing or disseminating population databases
with other law enforcement agencies, crime laboratories that serve them, or other
third parties the SBI deems necessary to assist the SBI with statistical analysis of the
SBI’s population databases. The population database may be made available to and
searched by other agencies participating in the CODIS system.”
SECTION 10. G.S. 15A-266.11 reads as rewritten: “§ 15A-266.11. Unauthorized uses of DNA
Databank; penalties.
1. Any person who, by virtue of employment, or official position, who has possession of,
or access to, individually identifiable DNA information contained in the State DNA
Database or Databank and who willfully discloses it in any manner to any person or
agency not entitled to receive it is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor in accordance
with G.S. 14-3.Class H felony.
2. Any person who, without authorization, willfully obtains individually identifiable DNA
information from the State DNA Database or Databank is guilty of a Class 1
misdemeanor in accordance with G.S. 14-3.Class H felony.”
SECTION 11. G.S. 15A-266.12 reads as rewritten: “§ 15A-266.12. Confidentiality of records.
1. All DNA profiles and samples submitted to the SBI pursuant to this Article shall be
treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed to or shared with any person or
agency except as provided in G.S. 15A-266.8.
2. Only DNA records and samples that directly relate to the identification of individuals
shall be collected and stored. These records and samples shall solely be used as a
part of the criminal justice system for the purpose of facilitating the personal
identification of the perpetrator of a criminal offense; provided that in appropriate
circumstances such records may be used to identify potential victims of mass
disasters or missing persons.
3. IDNA records and DNA samples submitted to the SBI pursuant to this Article are not
a public record as defined by G.S. 132-1.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 33
4. In the case of a criminal proceeding, requests to access a person’s DNA record shall
be in accordance with the rules for criminal discovery as defined in G.S. 15A-902.
The SBI shall not be required to provide the State DNA Database for criminal
discovery purposes.
I DNA records and DNA samples submitted to the SBI may only be released for the
following authorized purposes:
(1) For law enforcement identification purposes, including the identification of
human remains, to federal, State, or local criminal justice agencies.
(2) For criminal defense and appeal purposes, to a defendant who shall have
access to samples and analyses performed in connection with the case in which
such defendant is charged or was convicted.
(3) If personally identifiable information is removed to local, State, or federal law
enforcement agencies for forensic validation studies, forensic protocol Page 8
Session Law 2010-94 SL2010-0094 development or quality control purposes,
and for establishment or maintenance of a population statistics database.
(f) In order to maintain the computer system security of the SBI DNA database program,
the computer software and database structures used by the SBI to implement this Article
are confidential.”
SECTION 12. Article 23 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new
section to read: “§ 15A-502A. DNA sample upon arrest. A DNA sample shall be obtained from
any person arrested for an offense designated under G.S. 15A-266.3A, in accordance with the
provisions contained in Article 13 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes.”
SECTION 12.1. G.S. 15A-534(a) reads as rewritten:
SECTION 12. Article 23 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new
section to read: “§ 15A-502A. DNA sample upon arrest. A DNA sample shall be obtained from
any person arrested for an offense designated under G.S. 15A-266.3A, in accordance with the
provisions contained in Article 13 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes.”
SECTION 12.1. G.S. 15A-534(a) reads as rewritten:
“(a) In determining conditions of pretrial release a judicial official must impose at least
one of the following conditions:
(1) Release the defendant on his written promise to appear.
(2) Release the defendant upon his execution of an unsecured appearance bond
in an amount specified by the judicial official.
(3) Place the defendant in the custody of a designated person or organization
agreeing to supervise him.
(4) Require the execution of an appearance bond in a specified amount secured
by a cash deposit of the full amount of the bond, by a mortgage pursuant to G.S.
58-74-5, or by at least one solvent surety.
(5) House arrest with electronic monitoring. If condition (5) is imposed, the
defendant must execute a secured appearance bond under subdivision (4) of this
subsection. If condition (3) is imposed, however, the defendant may elect to
execute an appearance bond under subdivision (4). If the defendant is required
to provide fingerprints pursuant to G.S. 15A-502(a1) or (a2), or a DNA sample
pursuant to G.S. 15A-266.3A or G.S. 15A-266.4, and (i) the fingerprints or DNA
sample have not yet been taken or (ii) the defendant has refused to provide the
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 34
fingerprints or DNA sample, the judicial official shall make the collection of the
fingerprints or DNA sample a condition of pretrial release. The judicial official
may also place restrictions on the travel, associations, conduct, or place of abode
of the defendant as conditions of pretrial release.”
SECTION 13. G.S. 7B-2201 reads as rewritten: “§ 7B-2201. Fingerprinting and DNA sample
from juvenile transferred to superior court.
1. When jurisdiction over a juvenile is transferred to the superior court, the juvenile shall
be fingerprinted and the juvenile’s fingerprints shall be sent to the State Bureau of
Investigation.
2. When jurisdiction over a juvenile is transferred to the superior court, a DNA sample
shall be taken from the juvenile if any of the offenses for which the juvenile is
transferred are included in the provisions of G.S. 15A-266.3A.”
SECTION 14. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision is held invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity does not affect other provisions of the act that can be
given effect without the invalid provision. SL2010-0094 Session Law 2010-94 Pages 9
SECTION 15. This act becomes effective February 1, 2011.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 10th day of July, 2010.
S/ Walter H. Dalton
President of the Senate
S/ Joe Hackney
Speaker of the House of Representatives
S/ Beverly E. Perdue
Governor
Approved 10:30 a.m. this 15th day of July, 2010
DOJ Report
The following report was prepared by the North Carolina Department of Justice and provides the
background information for expanding DNA testing:
North Carolina Department of Justice
Targeting Violent Criminals by Investing in DNA
February 1, 2011
While traditional investigations and detective work will always be integral to law enforcement,
fighting crime has become increasingly reliant on technological and scientific advancement.
DNA may be one of the most important crime fighting tools of modern times. Advances in
technology have benefited the criminal justice system in many ways. In countless cases, DNA
has identified the suspects, convicted the guilty, cleared suspects, and brought closure to
victims and victims’ families. In other cases, DNA has exonerated the innocent.
Chewing gum, hair and even cigarette butts left at a crime scene can lead detectives to the right
suspect thanks to DNA analysis. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a unique genetic fingerprint
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 35
found in every cell of the human body. Just a tiny trace of the criminal’s saliva or blood left
behind at a crime scene can yield a DNA profile, which then can be compared to DNA samples
from known criminals, arrestees or other crime scene evidence for a match.
DNA technology is perhaps most promising when used to solve crimes without an apparent
suspect. In a rape case, for example, the victim may not be able to identify her attacker. When
investigators examine evidence collected from the victim, they are often able to obtain a DNA
sample from her attacker. This evidence can then be compared to thousands of DNA profiles
included in the state and national DNA database, commonly called the CODIS system. If the
comparison yields a match to an offender, the rapist can be identified and brought to justice.
Attorney General Roy Cooper has led the push in North Carolina to use DNA technology to
solve crimes and bring justice to victims by: 1) expanding the DNA database to include DNA
samples from all convicted felons and certain arrestees; 2) making sure that no-suspect rape
kits are quickly screened and analyzed, with any DNA evidence uncovered used to search the
DNA database to pinpoint suspects; 3) speeding the review, audit and uploading of convicted
offender and arrestee samples into the DNA database; and 4) helping local law enforcement
respond to cold case DNA database hits.
The State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) is bringing advanced DNA technology to North
Carolina’s crime fighters with dramatic results. Thanks to increased investment by the General
Assembly, federal grant funding, and the dedicated efforts of the men and women of the SBI,
the SBI has helped catch more murderers, rapists and other criminals in 2010 alone than in the
first ten years of the program combined. In 2010, the SBI had a total of 420 DNA database hits,
a 57 percent increase in DNA database hits over year 2009 alone. Since criminals, and
especially rapists, often strike again, a database “hit” can crack a cold case.
The SBI has made remarkable progress in screening, processing, analyzing and conducting
subsequent DNA database comparisons to crime scene evidence. In no-suspect cases, a DNA
analyst can compare a DNA profile developed from crime scene evidence to more than 203,000
DNA profiles in the SBI’s DNA database to see if there is a match. If a profile match occurs, this
is commonly referred to as a “CODIS” hit, meaning a match to the Combined DNA Index
System. Once a CODIS hit is made, it must be confirmed according to FBI requirements. This is
accomplished by re-analyzing the original sample that was taken from the convicted offender or
arrestee, which is stored at the SBI Crime Lab. The thumbprint taken at that time is also
compared to the convicted offender’s or arrestee’s fingerprints on file in the SBI fingerprint
database to confirm that the convicted offender or arrestee was the person giving the DNA
sample. After this “in-house” confirmation is complete, a search warrant is written and served on
the convicted offender or arrestee to obtain another sample of DNA. This sample is analyzed
again to definitively confirm that indeed was the person whose DNA was identified in the original
forensic evidence (crime scene evidence).
DNA technology is a remarkable crime fighting tool that can pinpoint or eliminate suspects, help
local law enforcement officers take violent criminals off the streets and strengthen the public
confidence in the criminal justice system. The SBI Crime Laboratory’s dramatic success fosters
an increasing demand for DNA services from local law enforcement and prosecutors. The SBI is
meeting this challenge head on with conclusive results. Beginning February 1, 2011 law
enforcement will begin collecting DNA from certain arrestees pursuant to the DNA Database Act
of 2010.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 36
We must continue to invest in the SBI to meet the growing demands from law enforcement,
prosecutors and the criminal justice system for SBI forensic laboratory services.
Summary of the Operations of the DNA Database Unit for 2010
2010 CODIS/Database Statistics
CODIS Hits for 2010: 420 (268 for 2009)
Convicted Offenders Uploaded: 18,346 (16,266 for 2009)
Forensic Samples Uploaded: 739 (766 for 2009)
2010 DNA Database Expenses (Convicted Offender Samples)
SBI Staff Costs to Process DNA CODIS Samples $ 228,421.05
(Includes 100% quality control review of all samples)
Private Laboratory expenses to process DNA CODIS Samples $ 348,583.46
Other operating expenses (e.g. supplies) $ 69,981.62
TOTAL 2010 DNA Database Expenses $ 646,986.13
In addition to the above noted expenses, the DOJ has entered into a technology services
agreement, valued at $250,450 with Morphotrak, Inc. that will modify and upgrade all fingerprint
workstations in state and local law enforcement offices. These system changes will ensure that
the local booking process for arrestee suspects will simplify data entry and processing
procedures when DNA cheek swabs are taken from arrestees along with fingerprint records.
On November 10, 2010, the DOJ concluded a competitive procurement process for the
processing of DNA arrestee samples and provision of cheek swab collection kits. The selected
vendor was Bode Technology Group (ISO Accredited Forensic Laboratory). The annual contract
value may vary from $900,000 to $1.9 million a year depending on the volume of samples
submitted for analysis and number of collection kits distributed to local law enforcement
agencies.
Staffing – A total of seven new positions have been established to support the DNA on arrest
initiative. The General Assembly approved 4.0 new DNA forensic scientist positions as part of
the 2010/2011 budget. An additional 3.0 receipt supported positions were also approved and
are funded by the new $2.00 DNA court fees authorized pursuant to Section 7.1 of SL 2010-
147.
New $2.00 Court Fee – Effective October 1, 2010, the DOJ started receiving court fee
collections pursuant to a newly authorized $2.00 DNA court fee (see Section 7.1 of SL 2010-
147). From October through December 2010, the DOJ has received $83,352 in collections, an
average of $27,784 a month.
The Department will continue to monitor revenues and expenses associated with the DNA
Database Unit to ensure adequate funding is available to efficiently and effectively process
arrestee samples.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 37
Arrestee Collection Kits
With the passing of the DNA Database Act of 2010 in July of 2010, the Database Unit shifted
gears and began preparing for the added processing and review of arrestee samples to be
collected beginning February 1, 2011. During the months of July through December 2010, the
analysis and production of DNA collection kits was placed on bid and the contract was awarded
to one vendor. The DNA collection kit was designed by the SBI, and the production of the DNA
collection kits began in December of 2010. The DNA collection kits were received by the SBI
and were disseminated to all law enforcement agencies during the weeks of January 17 and
January 24, 2011. This standardized collection kit will be used specifically for the collection of
DNA from certain convicted offenders and arrestees.
Expungement
An expungement procedure has passed SBI legal and lab management reviews. This
procedure was submitted to the FBI for their approval on January 14, 2011 and approved on
January 18, 2011. The expungement procedure outlines how expungement will be completed
as directed by G.S. 15A-266.3(A). If the arrestee qualifies for expungement, the DNA sample
will be removed from the SBI DNA Databank and destroyed. Also, the DNA record will be
removed from the SBI DNA Database and CODIS. The individual will be notified by letter
whether or not his/her sample qualified for expungement. Multiple reviews were built into the
expungement procedure to ensure that the process is completed as required by law.
G.S. 15A-266.3A provides a process by which a defendant’s DNA sample taken at arrest may
be expunged upon the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of certain events in the prosecution of
the defendant. As directed by G.S. 15A-266.5 (d), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) have studied the options for automating the
expunction process.
Beginning June 1, 2012, G.S.15A-266.3A (b1) directs that defendants will no longer have to
request expunction. Instead, prosecutors are directed to initiate the process within thirty (30)
days of the occurrence of one of the qualifying events enumerated in the statute. Both agencies
agree that, under the procedures currently mandated by G.S. 15A-266.3A, the only potential
automation is for the AOC to develop automated reporting to notify the District Attorney (DA) of
cases potentially eligible for DNA expunction, from which the DA may verify the cases’ eligibility.
This automated list could be generated through the District Attorney’s component of the
Criminal Court Information System (CCIS). This function was not part of the original system
design and would require additional development time. The added expenses of this additional
functionality were not included in original cost estimates and would require either additional
appropriation.
The DOJ and AOC also have identified certain procedural features of the current law that, if
amended, would facilitate further automation of the DNA expunction process. For example:
• The current statute mandates that the DA inform the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI)
of expunction-eligible cases via a request form bearing the signature of the prosecuting
district attorney or a judge, depending on the method by which the case was disposed.
By switching to electronic notification,2 the AOC and the SBI could further automated the
process to eliminate the costs associated with physical notification, such as printing
costs and postage, procedural delays inherent to mailed communications, well as the
double data entry the current process requires.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 38
• The current statute requires verification by a judge when expunction-eligible cases are
disposed via dismissal by the court or acquittal of the defendant. However, the fact of
disposition on those grounds is maintained as part of the court’s records as part of the
ordinary course of business. Because the DA or a clerk of superior court could confirm a
case’s disposition on those grounds from the court’s records, the judge’s direct
interaction in this process in unnecessary. As the current statute is written, the DA
makes the determination of expunction eligibility; the judge’s signature appears to be a
mere formality.
The DOJ and AOC will continue to work together and discuss these options over the coming
months, and are available to advise and assist with any clarification of the statute that the
General Assembly deems necessary.
Training Sessions
DNA training sessions were provided during the months of December 2010 and January 2011 in
Preparation for the implementation of the DNA Database Act of 2010 on February 1, 2011.
Individuals from the SBI DNA Database Unit, Forensic Biology Section, Department of Justice,
and North Carolina Justice Academy provided 15 training sessions across the state of North
Carolina. Training was conducted in the following locations: Edneyville, Morganton, Charlotte,
Raleigh, Greensboro, Salemburg, Greenville, Nags Head, and Franklin. During these sessions,
attending law enforcement officers were provided a PowerPoint presentation, a lesson plan
which explained the arrestee law, and a DVD demonstrating the proper collection technique.
Two additional training sessions are also being scheduled for early 2011.
Data Management System
DOJ’s IT division has designed new data management software which will aid in processing
arrestee and convicted offender samples. This program will allow the database unit to track all
samples that are received through upload and/or expungement. It will contain only identifying
information such as name, date of birth, submitting agency, qualifying offense, etc. There will be
no DNA profiles maintained in this system. Each DNA sample will be assigned a unique
barcode number which will be used by the system for tracking purposes. The system will also
be integrated with Live Scan, AOC, and CCH. DOJ’s IT division has worked diligently on this
project with the SBI lab for several months. The system will be an invaluable tool for the
processing of arrestee and convicted offender samples.
Live Scan
DOJ IT is also working with the 4 major Live Scan Vendors in North Carolina (Dataworks Plus,
MorphoTrack, Identix, and Crossmatch) to upgrade all Live Scan software to incorporate DNA
collection into the booking procedure. Data fields required for DNA collection are being added to
the software. In addition, the software will prompt the individual performing the Fingerprinting
when a DNA sample is required for a qualifying arrest. If the individual does not collect a
required sample, Live Scan will require a reason for the sample not being taken. If a sample is
not required due to the fact that the SBI already has a convicted offender sample on file for the
arrestee, Live Scan will also notify the individual of that situation. The SBI DNA Database
Collection Card required for each submission will be printed directly from Live Scan. These
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 39
upgrades will help integrate arrestee DNA collection into the already established booking
procedure. It will not be required that agencies use Live Scan for this purpose, but this tool will
be made available to assist Law Enforcement Agencies.
Validation
The DNA Database Unit is validating the currently used robotic platform for convicted offender
blood analysis, to analyze DNA from the cheek cell collectors used in the new standardized
arrestee and convicted offender kits. Additionally, we have recently revised all standard
operating procedures to meet ISO accreditation in 2011.
Storage System
To accommodate the convicted offender and arrestee specimens, the SBI DNA Database Unit
recently purchased an electronic filing and storage system which has the capacity to hold
approximately 500,000 convicted offender specimens. SBI is currently procuring a similar
system which has the capacity to hold approximately 400,000 arrestee specimens.
Personnel
Currently, the four DNA forensic scientist and three DNA technician positions have been posted
and recruited and are in the final stages of completing background checks. The majority of
these positions are expected to be filled by February of 2011.
Note: Until June 1, 2012, any such automated notification would be limited to the grounds
specified in G.S. 15A-266.3A(h)(1)a. through c. Prior to that date, expunction for the grounds
listed in G.S. 15A-266.3A(h)(1)d. and e. is initiated only upon a written request from the
defendant or defendant’s counsel. After that date, the automation would attempt to notify the DA
of a case’s potential eligibility for DNA expunction without a written request. It should be noted
that the courts have no information from which to identify cases eligible for DNA expunction
under subdivision (h)(1)d (no charges filed within statute of limitations), because without a filed
charge, here is no court record of the proceeding. The only record of such proceedings would
be in the records of the arresting agency.
Note: For an example, see the authorization for the courts to provide the Division of Motor
Vehicles with electronic notice of certain convictions in the last sentence of G.S. 20‐24(b).
Note: Pursuant to G.S. 15A‐266.3A(j), the DA must “verify and indicate the facts of the
qualifying event on a verification form,” after which the DA merely must “obtain the signature of
a judge” for certain dispositions. The judge in this scenario exercises no discretion and makes
no determination regarding the eligibility of the defendant for expunction of the DNA sample.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 40
Criminal Justice Information Sharing
Background
The CJIN Board started to investigate information sharing at the local level for a variety of
reasons; the CJIN Mobile Data Network was approaching obsolescence (the number of users
has significantly decreased), the number of wireless applications was continuing to increase
(eCITATION, DMV & Correction Photos, etc.), there were a variety of information sharing
systems being implemented and used across the state (COPLINK, Police to Police, Rambler,
Inform, etc.), there were systems under development or being discussed at the state level that
would impact the operations of local law enforcement (NCAWARE, CJLEADS, Electronic
Discovery, Crime Statistics, etc.), the Federal Bureau of Investigation was developing a national
repository for local law enforcement information that contained advanced analytical tools
(National Data Exchange – N-DEx), the Naval Criminal Investigative Services was developing a
repository for local law enforcement agencies in proximity to Naval Installations that contained a
database with applications (Law Enforcement Information Exchange – LInX), the wireless
industry was continuing to enhance their products and broadband was being addressed at the
federal level with stimulus funds, traditional 911 voice systems were on a fast track toward data
and video that may have a cascading effort on record systems and courts, advance
technologies were emerging in the criminal justice community such as digital signature, GIS,
and security with two-factor authentication, and other states were implementing and discussing
projects that would collect local incident information through the use of third-party vendors
deploying a turn-key approach.
Local law enforcement agencies across North Carolina are the custodians for a wealth of crime
fighting data. These agencies maintain a repository containing a comprehensive view of every
criminal incident that occurs within their jurisdiction. Over the last several decades this data has
been in transition in the majority of agencies from a manual to automated process, complete
with computers in the vehicles – millions of dollars are spent by local agencies to implement,
operate, and maintain these systems. While the functionality of these systems varies
significantly, they are each designed to satisfy the business needs of that agency.
In parallel with researching local information sharing, the CJIN Board contacted other states and
federal agencies to determine how the industry was addressing these issues. The Board
received presentations from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Naval Criminal
Investigative Service (NCIS) both of which have operational data repositories containing local
incident information and both are functional on a national level – an effort is currently underway
to connect these repositories.
The CJIN staff contacted all the RMS vendors that operate in North Carolina. Members of the
Board and law enforcement met with three of these vendors, that collectively serve in excess of
95% of our local agencies and have their corporate headquarters in North Carolina, to
determine how receptive they would be to providing a standard interface, and more importantly,
maintaining this interface as part of their future core suite of products. The vendors were not
only receptive to standardizing, they provided some significant insight into other areas such as
single sign-on, two factor authentication, warrants, etc. CJIN facilitated these meetings;
however, personnel from local law enforcement agencies and other state agencies were in
attendance including the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the State Bureau of
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 41
Investigation (SBI). The vendors also agreed to work closely with AOC on investigating an
electronic interface to the NCAWARE System.
The Board was concerned that the impact to the criminal justice community within the state, as
a result of all the various systems being developed, may be detrimental to the existing business
process of local law enforcement agencies. If properly planned, designed, and implemented all
the aforementioned items would significantly enhance the operation of local law enforcement.
The CJIN Board needed to update their original strategic plan and started the process by
addressing the place where the majority of criminal cases originate, with the local law
enforcement agencies. The Board was also working with the various state agencies on a
variety of upgrades, enhancements, and new systems, while staying in contact with other states
and federal agencies.
Board Meetings & Information Gathering
To obtain a base line on information sharing and the technology being utilized, both at the local
and state level, the CJIN Board reached out to various agencies for assistance. The following
agencies provided the Board with presentations, live demonstrations, and handouts:
September 13, 2007
• Governor’s Crime Commission – Grants
• NC Fusion Center – ISAAC
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Bureau of Investigation – SAFIS
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• State Highway Patrol – DMV Photos
• E911 Wireless Board
• Durham Sheriff’s Office – Gang Net
November 8, 2007
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• State Bureau of Investigation – SAFIS
• Department of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention – NC-JOIN
• North Carolina Local Government Information Systems Association
• Office of Information Technology Services – Second Major Data Center
• Department of Correction – OPUS
January 24, 2008
• Town of Cary IT
• City of Wilson IT
• City of High Point PD
• City of Jacksonville IT/PD
• State Bureau of Investigation – SAFIS
• City of Durham PD
• City of Raleigh PD
• Buncombe County IT/District Attorney
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 42
March 12, 2008
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• State Bureau of Investigation – SAFIS
• 2008 General Assembly Report
September 18, 2009
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• State Highway Patrol – DMV Photos
• Federal Bureau of Investigation – InfraGard
• Governor’s Crime Commission – SAVAN
• Office of State Controller – CJLEADS
• State Highway Patrol – CJIN Mobile Data Network
November 20, 2008
• Town of Coats PD
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• State Highway Patrol – DMV Photos
• Department of Corrections – DOC Photos
• Buncombe County/City of Asheville IT/District Attorney
• Department of Corrections – Probation System
• State of Pennsylvania – Justice Network
January 27, 2009
• Office of Information Technology Services – Digital Signatures & E-Forms
• Wake County Sheriff’s Office
• City of Raleigh PD
• City of Kinston PD
• Johnston County Sheriff’s Office
• State of Michigan – Justice Network
March 26, 2009
• Office of Information Technology Services – Digital Signatures & E-Forms
• Wake County Sheriff’s Office
• 2009 General Assembly Report
• State of Nebraska – Justice Network
October 29, 2009
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• Department of Corrections – DOC Photos
• Charlotte Mecklenburg PD – CRISS
• Office of State Controller – CJLEADS
• NC Department of Justice – Local Data Integration & Crime Statistics
• Naval Criminal Investigative Service – LInX
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 43
• Federal Bureau of Investigation – N-DEx
January 28, 2010
• Local Criminal Justice Information Sharing
• Town of Coats PD
• City of Dunn PD
• Harnett County Sheriff’s Office
• City of Benson PD
• City of Lillington PD
• Town of Angier PD
• HB 1282 – Automated Pawn Systems
• City of Raleigh PD
• Wake County Sheriff’s Office
• Charlotte Mecklenburg PD
• Guilford County Sheriff’s Office
• City of Fayetteville PD
• Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office
• City of Jacksonville IT/PD
March 18, 2010
• Next Generation Emergency Dispatch Solution
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Cisco Systems
• Buncombe County Senior ADA
• Pawn Systems Study
• Approved 2010 General Assembly Report
October 14, 2010
• DMV Photos – New Photo Recognition System
• Tracking Dashboard for Probation Officers
• CJIN Information Sharing Initiative
• NCIS LInX System
• LInX Governance Board
• FBI – N-DEx
• Approve Initiative for Standards
• CJLEADS Update
• Electronic Discovery – AOC
November 17, 2010
• Next Generation 911
• Information Sharing Initiative
• VisionAir
• Southern Software
• SunGard OSSI
• RMS Standards
• JMS Standards
March 24, 2011
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 44
• DOC Notification of Outstanding Warrants
• Using Web Services
• Electronic Discovery Project – Evidence Numbering
• Approved 2011 General Assembly Report
• SB-144 Cash Converters
• Recommended Approval of the Senate Bill
• Discussion of CJIN Staff
October 13, 2011
• Discuss Workshops with RMS Vendors
• NCAWARE
• CJLEADS
• DA access to DMV
• Mental Health Access to Criminal Records
• Crime Lab Numbering
• Electronic Discovery Update
• DA Evidence in Video Format
• Remote Access to ACIS
• Use of VPNs
• CJIS Two-Factor Authentication, FBI
• COPLINK, CRISS, i2, Horry County, SC
• NCIS – LInX Northrop Grumman, NC LInX Board
• Interface two Regional Systems
• Next Generation 911
• NC One-Map, Geographical Information Systems
February 23, 2012
• CJLEADS
• CJIN Mobile Data
• NCAWARE
• Access to ACIS
• DAS Alerting
• Statewide Criminal Search for DA
• Verizon Smart Phone Criminal Justice Applications
• Interface COPLINK and LInX
• Governor’s Crime Commission
• DNA
• Mental Health – Criminal Records
• Scrap Metal
• Charlotte/Mecklenburg PD
• Raleigh PD
• NC Fusion Center – ISAAC
• DOC Smart Phone Applications
• NC DEx
Note: The details associated with the majority of the above presentations are posted on the
CJIN Board Website with contact information on the agency and links to the presentations.
CJIN Ge
Local La
After num
agencies
informati
agencies
incident
incident;
crimes, s
the scen
informati
Based on
the State
• H
• In
• K
• N
• S
• S
• S
• U
• V
Two age
agencies
The vend
the Reco
Managem
informati
the state
• SunG
(P2P
• South
• Visio
NC Crim
To addr
sharing a
CJIN B
consistin
the data
categorie
NC law e
eneral Asse
aw Enforcem
merous discu
s, it was ob
on is the Re
s within the s
that occurs
they are th
searching fo
e, interviews
on.
n our resear
e of North Ca
HTE OSSI Co
nterAct
Keystone
New World
SunGard OSS
Southern Sof
Spillman
USA
VisionAir
encies have
s do not poss
dors genera
ords Manag
ment, Mobil
on sharing
:
Gard OSSI
);
hern Softwa
nAir – Inform
minal Justi
ess crimina
and make inf
Board crea
g of the fo
a was segm
es and includ
enforcement
embly Repo
ment Agenc
ussions with
bvious that
ecord Manag
state. These
within that
e source of
r specific inf
s, etc.), adv
rch and the
arolina:
orporate
SI
ftware
developed
sess an elec
ally provide
gement Sys
e Data Sys
systems for
– Police
re – Ramble
m.
ce Data Ba
al justice in
formed deci
ated a da
llowing data
mented into
des an exce
t agencies:
ort – April 2
cies/Record
h sheriff dep
one of the
gement Syst
e record sys
jurisdiction.
information
formation (c
vanced crime
assistance
their own i
ctronic recor
an integrate
tem (both P
stems, Fire
r their agenc
to Police
er; and
ase
nformation
sions, the
ata base
a items –
o several
ess of 540
2012
d Manageme
uties and po
key source
tem (RMS)
stems contai
These dat
used for tra
color of vehic
e analysis, e
of the SBI,
nternal syst
rds system.
ed system c
Police, Fire
Alerting, et
cies and the
ent System
olice officers
es of crimin
used by the
n a wealth o
tabases con
acking crime
cle, descript
etc. It is the
we found th
tems for rec
comprised o
& Emerge
tc. The RM
e following a
Vendors
s from all the
al justice a
majority of
of informatio
ntain the offi
es (trend an
tion of prope
e repository
he following
cords and in
of Computer
ency Medica
MS vendors
are currently
Pag
e aforementi
and public s
law enforce
n regarding
cial record o
nalysis), map
erty, personn
of crime fig
RMS Vendo
n excess of
Aided Disp
al Services)
s have also
y available w
ge 45
ioned
safety
ement
each
of an
pping
nel at
ghting
ors in
f 100
patch,
, Jail
built
within
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 46
County and Law Enforcement Agency Information:
• NC County
• Population served by LE Agency
• Agency Name
• Originating Reporting Identifier (ORI) Number
• Number of Sworn Officers
• Agency Address
• Contact – Sheriff or Police Chief
• Phone Number
• E-Mail
• Judicial District
• Court Directory – Judges, District Attorney, Clerk, Magistrates, etc. (AOC Link)
• Member – Organization of Metro Chief
Note: The above information provides an overview of each NC law enforcement agency.
LE Information Sharing Systems used by Agencies:
• I2 – COPLINK, National Crime Analysis System
• NCIS development System, Law Enforcement Information Exchange, LInX
• Police to Police, SunGard OSSI Product
• Police to Citizen, SunGard OSSI Product
• Rambler, Southern Software Product
• Inform, VisionAir Product
• Leads On Line, National Pawn Shop Data Base
• Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), Which the Agencies report UCR
Note: The above information provides CJIN with all the ongoing information sharing efforts
LE Dispatch Information and Systems Used:
• 911 Dispatch Center, Public Safety Answering Point, agency receive 911 calls directly
• Dispatched by another agency, identify agency
• Governing Authority of Dispatch Center
• 911 System, type and vendor
• Radio System, type and vendor
• Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System
• Record Management System (RMS) Vendor
• Mobile Data Vendor
• Field Based Reporting Vendor
• Jail Management System (JMS) Vendor
• Narcotics Module, type and vendor
• Fire Records Management Vendor
• Geographical Information System (GIS) Vendor
• Technical Contact Person in Agency
• Technical Phone Number
• Technical E-Mail
Note: The above information provides a comprehensive profile of all the systems
State and Local Systems:
• Gang Net
• CJLEADS
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 47
• NCAWARE
• CAPTURES
• OPUS
• CJIN Mobile Data
• VIPER
• Pawn Transaction Program
• Electronic Discovery
• Other systems
The local law enforcement agencies are identified below along with their RMS vendor and if
they possess one of the information sharing systems it is denoted; the three major RMS
vendors within North Carolina provide their officers with the aforementioned information sharing
tools – Rambler, Police to Police, and Inform. Information regarding the law enforcement
agency is also provided; population of jurisdiction and number of sworn officers.
The chart displays the agencies that are participating in one of the two regional systems in the
state – COPLINK or NCIS’s LInX, in addition to, the agencies that are designated a Public
Safety Answering Point (receives 911 calls and dispatches police, fire, and emergency medical
services), and agencies that use Leads-On-Line (a data base of pawn broker records that is
being used by approximately 60 agencies and reflect over 200 pawn shops within North
Carolina, the system is connected to the NCIC’s Hot List and contains data from approximately
1400 law enforcement agencies in 35 other states.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 48
Agency/RMS Vendor/County/Information Sharing Chart
AGENCY NAME
Sworn
Officers RMS Vendor County POP PSAP Coplink LInX P2P Rambler
Leads
On
Line
Aberdeen PD 28 Southern Software Moore 5,301 1 1
Alamance County SO 118 OSSI Alamance 60,211 1 1
Albemarle PD 49 OSSI Stanly 16,338 1
Albert J. Ellis PD Onslow Airport
Alexander County SO 32 OSSI Alexander 35,385 1 1
Alleghany County SO 13 Southern Software Alleghany 9,460 1 1
Andrews PD 6 Southern Software Cherokee 1,913
Angier PD 12 Southern

North Carolina Criminal Justice Information Network Governing Board Report
Submitted to the
Senior Chair, Chairs, Co-Chairs, and Vice Chairs of the
Senate and House Appropriations Committees
and the
Chairs, Co-Chairs, and Vice Chairs of the
Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety
April 2012
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
Strategic Direction & Recommendations ...................................................................................... 3
Background .................................................................................................................................. 7
Governing Board ......................................................................................................................... 10
CJIN Governing Board Membership ................................................................................... 10
CJIN Governing Board Financials ....................................................................................... 10
CJIN Governing Board ........................................................................................................ 11
DNA Expunction .......................................................................................................................... 12
Background ......................................................................................................................... 12
Survey of Other States ........................................................................................................ 13
State of California DNA Expungement Form ...................................................................... 21
North Carolina HB1403 ....................................................................................................... 24
DOJ Report ......................................................................................................................... 34
Criminal Justice Information Sharing .......................................................................................... 40
Background ......................................................................................................................... 40
NC Criminal Justice Data Base ........................................................................................... 45
Interface Two Regional Systems ........................................................................................ 71
Specific Data Exchange Standards ..................................................................................... 74
Agencies without Automation – CJIN Initiative .................................................................... 78
Scrap Metal Study ....................................................................................................................... 79
North Carolina GS 66-11 ..................................................................................................... 79
Mississippi Scrap Metal ....................................................................................................... 82
Arkansas Scrap Metal ......................................................................................................... 93
Updated Pawn Broker Transaction Study ................................................................................... 97
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 97
Background ......................................................................................................................... 98
Existing North Carolina Systems ....................................................................................... 112
Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 129
Activities ................................................................................................................................... 130
Cities and Towns ............................................................................................................... 131
Counties ............................................................................................................................ 134
State Systems ................................................................................................................... 136
Federal Agencies .............................................................................................................. 138
Friends of CJIN ......................................................................................................................... 140
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 147
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 1
Executive Summary
The Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN) Governing Board created pursuant to Section
23.3 of Chapter 18 of the Session Laws of the 1996 Second Extra Session shall report by April
1st of each year, to the Chairs of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, the Chairs
of the Senate and House Appropriations subcommittees on Justice and Public Safety, and the
Fiscal Research Division of the General Assembly on:
• The operating budget of the Board, the expenditures of the Board as of the date of the
report, and the amount of funds in reserve for the operation of the Board; and
• A long-term strategic plan and the cost analysis for statewide implementation of the
Criminal Justice Information Network. For each component of the Network, the initial
cost estimate of the component, the amount of funds spent to date on the component,
the source of funds for expenditures to date, and a timetable for completion of that
component, including additional resources needed at each point.
The 2012 CJIN Annual Report contains the Board’s recommendations based on workshops,
discussions, and presentations over the last year. One of the main objectives was to evaluate
and identify enterprise solutions that were compatible with on-going projects but did not require
substantial funding. The Board also addressed and resolved numerous action items that were
brought to the Board’s attention from a variety of sources. All of the Board’s recommendations
and action items are contained in the Section entitled “Strategic Direction and
Recommendations.”
During 2011-2012, the CJIN Board addressed various strategic issues facing the criminal justice
community; Interconnecting two Regional Information Sharing Systems, DNA Expunction, Scrap
Metal Dealers, Impact of Next Generation 911 on Electronic Discovery, Mobile Data and Smart
Phone Applications, Crime Mapping, Electronic Interface to NCAWARE, Two-Factor
Authentication, DMV’s Interface to Crash Systems,
The Board continues to recommend the adoption of information exchange standards. After
extensive research coupled with partnerships with both the local law enforcement agencies and
their Record Management System (RMS) Vendors, the CJIN Board recommended the adoption
of data exchange standards within the State of North Carolina. Adopting a specific standard will
not only potentially save law enforcement tens of millions of dollars in the future but more
importantly it will provide the criminal justice community with an abundance of actionable
information that is not currently available to most agencies today. Furthermore, to our
knowledge, North Carolina would be the first state to deploy such a strategy and this practice
could be extended to other applications both within and outside of criminal justice. A section of
this report is dedicated to the Board’s Updated Information Sharing Initiative. Additionally, the
CJIN staff has been working with numerous state and local agencies on an information sharing
initiative designed for law enforcement agencies that are not automated and cannot afford the
required equipment.
The Board was directed to study the feasibility of creating an automated pawn transaction
database system as part of the Criminal Justice Information Network. The Board submitted the
results of this study in April 2010. To facilitate this study, the CJIN Board conducted workshops
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 2
with county and municipal law enforcement agencies, information technology professionals,
pawnshop owners, pawnshop lobbyists, and vendors operating in North Carolina. A significant
portion of two CJIN Board meetings were dedicated to presentations and discussions regarding
the study. Additionally, the CJIN staff reviewed numerous other studies that were completed by
other states and participated in conversations with personnel from those states. What we did
not know, and learned in the process of performing the study, was that for an incremental
increase in technology coupled with legislative changes that would extend past the pawn
industry to potentially include scrap metal, precious metals, secondhand dealers, etc. would
have a far greater impact on reducing property crime in the State of North Carolina. Included in
this report is an updated version of 2010 report. At our February 2012 Meeting, Senator Wesley
Meredith shared with the Board his vision of regulating second-hand dealers that deal in cash
along with his 2011 Cash Converters Bill; that is now law. The undertaking of a study of Scrap
Metal should be available in the near future; an overview of this study is presented in this report.
The report also contains background information regarding the Governing Board and the
membership, an update on criminal justice activities, a proposed strategic direction, and
research derived from federal, state and local government initiatives that could be utilized within
the state, recognition of personnel providing assistance, and a review of our 2011 opportunities.
The General Appropriations Committee, the Appropriations Justice and Public Safety
Subcommittee, and the Joint Legislative Correction, Crime Control, and Juvenile Justice
Oversight Committee have historically relied upon the CJIN Board to undertake high profile
initiatives, requested cost allocation reports with recommendations, and allowed the Board to
provide technical demonstrations. The CJIN Board has provided various presentations to the
Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology. On December 12, 2011 the
Chair of the Board presented to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committees on Health and
Human Services and the Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology the
concept of providing mental health facilities with criminal history.
The CJIN Board has successfully installed a statewide criminal justice infrastructure that has
made information sharing a possibility – their implemented projects included mobile voice &
data, fingerprinting, court and juvenile justice applications, along with access to federal data
bases. The CJIN Board is by far the most knowledgeable cross-section of criminal justice
professionals assembled in North Carolina and possesses a proven track record of success.
Because most statewide projects cross over the jurisdictional boundaries between the Judicial
and the Executive branches, the membership of the CJIN Board is well represented by both
sides and has a history of success in working together.
In summary, the Board is comprised of 21 members appointed by the Governor, Chief Justice,
Speaker of the House, Senate President, Attorney General, and State Chief Information Officer.
It is the background of these members that has made all the aforementioned projects and the
ones highlighted in this report a success – Six Chief Information Officers/IT Directors, four from
law enforcement, six Officers of the Court, three general public, DMV Commissioner, and Chief
of Staff with Juvenile Justice.
.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 3
Strategic Direction & Recommendations
In keeping with our objectives, the CJIN Board adopted a strategic direction that addressed
numerous initiatives over the last several years. These initiatives and the actions of the Board
are outlined below:
At the October 13, 2011 Board meeting, the members approved the interface between two
incident-based systems within North Carolina (based on receiving the cost summaries) –
Interfacing Charlotte/Mecklenburg’s COPLINK System (55 Agencies) to the Naval Criminal
Investigative Services (NCIS) LInX System (60 Agencies). Prior to making a decision, the
Board received several presentations and participated in a lengthy decision with personnel from
NCIS, Jacksonville PD, Northrop Grumman, Charlotte/Mecklenburg PD, i2 COPLINK, and Horry
County, SC. The regional local arrest/incident reporting systems, when interfaced, will serve
appropriately 50% of the State.
At the February 23, 2012 Board meeting, the members directed the CJIN staff to work with the
law enforcement agencies across the state to study the impact, if any, that the Scrap Metal
business is having on property crime. The staff is working with numerous law enforcement
agencies, other states, several members of the legislature, the electric utilities in NC, the
telecommunication companies, etc. The study will be done in a similar manner as the Pawn
Transaction Study and will contain recommendations.
Additionally, at the February 23, 2012 Board meeting, the members received an overview along
with some insight into one of the challenges facing the District Attorneys – Expunging DNA. As
a follow-up to this issue, the Board received a presentation at the March 29, 2012 Board
meeting. After discussions the board agreed to recommend handling DNA Expunction in the
same manner as other states.
At the October 14, 2010 Board meeting, the members approved the following Local Law
Enforcement Information Sharing recommendations:
• Adopt a specific data standard to be used for Record Management System (RMS)
Vendors to exchange information with a designated repository;
• Allow the local law enforcement agencies and the regional systems to begin exchanging
information with a federal agency (to be determined – FBI or NCIS);
• Request that each RMS Vendor select one of their North Carolina Law Enforcement
Agencies and implement an operational data standard with a federal agency (to be
determined – FBI or NCIS) as a proof of concept; and
• Redirect the routing of information from the selected federal agency back to the SBI
when the state repository becomes fully operational.
The Pawn Transaction Study Report was approved by the Board on March 18, 2010 with the
following Study Recommendation:
• What we did not know and learned in the process of performing the study was that for an
incremental increase in technology coupled with legislative changes that would extend
past the pawn brokers to potentially include scrap metal, precious metals, secondhand
dealers, etc. would have a far greater impact on reducing property crime in the State of
North Carolina.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 4
• For this reason, the CJIN Board respectfully requests the Oversight Committee consider
allowing the Board to broaden the original study.
Note: There are numerous other states that are either in the process of studying this or have
recently implemented similar legislation.
At the March 18, 2010 Board meeting, the members agreed to support SB-144 which requires
Cash Converter Businesses to keep records of purchases and to make those records available
to local law enforcement.
Based on all the presentations, workshops, and input from the criminal justice community, the
CJIN Board supports the following recommendations, initiatives, and projects:
• Deploy national standards for information sharing especially the ones that are already
being utilized and proven to be successful, which will result in a decrease in operating
costs and cost avoidance in the tens of millions, viable candidates include Local Law
Enforcement Record Management Systems (RMS), Jail Management Systems (JMS),
Traffic Crash Systems, etc.;
• Utilize and enhance existing systems prior to spending millions of dollars on the
development of new systems, especially if the existing systems are very successful;
example, expand the use of NCIS’s Law Enforcement Information Exchange (LInX).
The LInX System has a proven track record within the NC Local Law Enforcement
community; therefore, this system should be expanded and interconnected with other
state and federal agencies;
• Continue the Board’s partnerships with NC businesses that assist law enforcement
agencies; Pawn Brokers, RMS/JMS Vendors, Crime Mapping Vendors, etc.;
• Continue to support the Electronic Discovery Project; assist the District Attorneys, the
Administrative Office of the Courts, the State Bureau of Investigation, the local law
enforcement agencies, etc.;
• Investigate the possibility of securing federal funding for using North Carolina as a
candidate for a statewide broadband network similar to the San Francisco/Bay Area
which was the selected candidate for a regional solution;
• Continue to support the expansion of the CJLEADS Project; and
• Continue to support the expansion of the NCAWARE Project.
• Continue to support the SBI’s project – NC DEx; which is still in the process of being
developed.
The CJIN Board is committed to exploring opportunities that will enhance the Criminal Justice
Community.
During the last year, the CJIN Board had the opportunity to coordinate with various agencies the
resolution of numerous action items; the following items represent a sample of these:
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 5
• Provide the District Attorneys and the Assistant District Attorneys with access to the
Division of Motor Vehicles database; the request from the DAs was completed based on
the assistance of the Office of the State Controller, the CJLEADS Project Team, and the
DMV Commissioner.
• Provide the RMS Companies with an electronic interface and a regular download of the
NCAWARE database; the Administrative Office of the Courts has successfully provided
the RMS Vendors with a nightly download of the warrants and they are considering an
electronic interface in their future plans.
• Provide mental health facilities with access to criminal records; the Attorney’s General
Office assisted the CJIN Staff and the forensic facility that handles the pretrial
evaluations has been contacted.
• Provide the DA’s Office with more information technology functionality; the
Administrative Office of the Courts resolved the issues of remote access to ACIS, the
viewing of video evidence, and added several future enhancements to their NCAWARE
Project.
• Based on requests and clarification from numerous criminal justice agencies, the CJIN
Board requested and received a comprehensive presentation from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) on the subject of two-factor authentication. The power point
provided by the FBI was made available to agencies and will be posted on our new
website with the Office of Information Technology Services.
• Based on requests regarding future discoverable items (text & video) from next
generation 911, the executive director of the NC 911 Board provided the members with a
comprehensive presentation of the possibilities for processing and storing text and
video. The CJIN Board is very interested in the handoff of this possible evidence to
criminal justice and the impact that it could have on the Administrative Office of the
Courts Electronic Discovery Project.
• During the Board’s workshops with the RMS vendors, the subject of Geographical
Information Systems was mentioned on various occasions. For this reason and to
provide the members with a better understanding of the NC-One Map, the Board
requested and received a comprehensive presentation from the Executive Director of the
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis; a download of this
information is free.
CJIN’s Criminal Justice Data Base
The CJIN Board started collecting information several years ago. The data elements are
outlined in Criminal Justice Information Sharing Section of this report.
Based on the data collected, the following information sharing systems were identified (based
on the number of agencies using the system and the number of sworn officers in the agency).
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 6
The criminal justice data base is still being developed; therefore, systems such as CJLEADS,
NCAWARE, CJIN Mobile Data, DAS, etc. are being added on a per agency/sworn officer basis.
There are approximately 550 agencies and 22,000 sworn officers within North Carolina and it is
important that we ensure that these valuable systems reach these officers and not just their
agency.
At some point, we need to perform traffic studies to determine the value of each one of these
systems. Usage is very important as we move toward integration, web services, single sign-on,
advanced authentication, etc. because it will allow us to prioritize projects and allocate
expenditures based on return on investment.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
COPLINK
LInX
P2P
Rambler
Inform
Leads
Gang Net
Number of Agencies
Information Sharing Systems
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
COPLINK
LInX
P2P
Rambler
Inform
Leads
Gang Net
Number of Sworn Officers
Information Sharing Systems
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 7
Background
The North Carolina Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN) initiative is a project which will
allow the sharing of information between state and local criminal justice agencies.
During the 1994 Special Crime Session, the North Carolina General Assembly created the CJIN
Study Committee and appropriated monies to study and develop a plan for a statewide criminal
justice information network. The CJIN Study Final Report, dated April 7, 1995, outlined a
comprehensive strategic plan that provided the vision for the statewide Criminal Justice
Information Network in North Carolina. Based on recommendations and strategies identified in
the plan, the General Assembly established the Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN)
Governing Board in Section 23.3 of Chapter 18 of the Session Laws of the 1996 Second Extra
Session.
North Carolina is recognized today in the nation as one of the leading states in developing a
statewide criminal justice infrastructure. Our success is due directly in part to the North Carolina
General Assembly recognizing the need for further coordination and cooperation between state
and local agencies in establishing standards for sharing of criminal justice information.
The CJIN Governing Board created the following vision:
To develop a statewide criminal justice information network in North Carolina that will
enable a properly authorized user to readily and effectively use information, regardless
of its location in national, state, or local databases.
The Governing Board has built an outstanding reputation for successfully implementing
statewide programs. This success can be directly attributable to the hard work and dedication
of the board members along with their experience and diversity. The composition of the board
is made up of professionals from the state, county, and municipal levels representing law
enforcement, the court system, corrections, juvenile justice, information technology, and the
public.
Study Final Report Findings
The North Carolina Legislature, during their 1994 Special Crime Session, created a ‘Blue
Ribbon’ Study Committee to identify alternative strategies for developing and implementing a
statewide criminal justice information network in North Carolina that would permit the sharing of
information between state and local agencies. An examination of the state’s current criminal
justice information systems revealed the following deficiencies:
• It takes too long to positively identify persons. From fingerprints to photographs,
information is scattered across different databases and filing systems.
• A single, comprehensive source for a person’s criminal history is not available in North
Carolina. Bits and pieces must be assembled on each individual, causing valuable time
to be wasted on information collection.
• There is no single source of outstanding warrants. A person wanted in one county could
be stopped in another while the officer has no knowledge of an outstanding warrant.
This situation compromises public and officer safety.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 8
• Data is entered excessively and redundantly. There is no single, centralized location for
all information and records so data is entered and reentered over and over again into
separate databases using different coding systems.
• There is no statewide, interagency mobile voice and data communications system.
Officers cannot talk to their counterparts across their own county, much less to those
across the state.
Study Final Report Recommendations
The CJIN Study Committee outlined the following major recommendations for removing these
barriers that hindered the establishment and implementation of a comprehensive criminal justice
information network. These recommendations also took into account the major building blocks
for a statewide criminal justice information network that were already in place in 1995.
• Establish a CJIN Governing Board to create, promote, and enforce policies and
standards.
• Adopt system architecture standards, end-user upgrades, and system security standards
to facilitate movement of data between systems.
• Establish data standards for sharing information, including common definitions, code
structures, and formats.
• Implement Live Scan digitized fingerprint systems and Statewide Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (SAFIS) technology to accomplish positive fingerprint identification
within two hours of arrest.
• Implement a statewide magistrate system to streamline the process of warrant and case
creation.
• Build a statewide warrant repository that contains all new and served warrant
information.
• Implement a statewide fingerprint-based criminal history that includes all arrests and
dispositions.
• Build a statewide identification index that includes information from all state and local
agencies, as well as necessary linkages to federal justice agencies.
• Establish standards for, and implement a mobile voice and data communication network
that allows state and local law enforcement and public safety agencies to communicate
with each other, regardless of location within the state.
Participants
CJIN is comprised of state, local, public and private representatives. The Department of Public
Safety (Division of Correction, the Division of Law Enforcement, & the Division of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention), the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Division of
Motor Vehicles, and the State Chief Information Officer are participating CJIN state agencies.
Local representation includes Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, County Commissioners, County
Information System Directors, North Carolina Chapter of Public Communications Officials
International, Court Clerks of Superior Court, Judges, District Attorneys, general public
appointments by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of
the Senate, and the North Carolina Local Government Information System Association
(NCLGISA).
Initiatives
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 9
The following CJIN initiatives evolved from the CJIN Study Final Report Recommendations:
• Voice Interoperability Plan for Emergency Responders (VIPER)
• Statewide Automated Fingerprint Identification System (SAFIS)
• CJIN-Mobile Data Network (CJIN-MDN)
• North Carolina Juvenile Online Information Network (NC-JOIN)
• Statewide Magistrate System
• End-User Technology
• CJIN Network Security
• CJIN Data Sharing Standards
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 10
Governing Board
Section 23.3 of Chapter 18 of the Session Laws of the 1996 Second Extra Session established
the Criminal Justice Information Network Governing Board within the Department of Justice
(DOJ) for administrative and budgetary purposes. Section 17.1.(a) of the Session Law 2003-
284 House Bill 397 transferred CJIN to the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
(DCC&PS). The CJIN Governing Board is established within the DCC&PS for organizational
and budgetary purposes only and the Board exercises all of its statutory power independent of
control by the DCC&PS.
CJIN Governing Board Membership
There are twenty-one legislatively defined members on the Board. The CJIN Executive Director
serves as an advisory member to the Board and is supported by an Administrative Assistant.
There is also an ex-officio advisory member that represents the local city and county Information
System (IS) directors.
Mr. Robert Brinson, Department of Public Safety, Chief Information Officer, was re-elected as
the CJIN Chair and Mr. Bill Stice, Town of Cary, Technology Service Director, resigned as the
Vice Chair. The Board has an open action item to elect a Vice Chair.
The CJIN Web Site reflects almost all of the presentations provided at each meeting, all CJIN
reports, minutes of all the meetings, board membership, projects, and other relevant CJIN
activities. A CJIN email address is available for questions on CJIN operations. Based on all the
presentations and workshops over the last two years an information sharing section was added
to the Web Site that reflects projects from the federal, state, and local levels – power point
presentations, handouts, contact information, etc. Within the next month, the web site will be
relocated to the Office of Information Technology Services Home Page. The CJIN Staff applied
for and received a new domain name for the CJIN Site; www.cjin.nc.gov.
CJIN Governing Board Financials
Office of Information Technology Services
Criminal Justice Information Network
Period Ending: February 29, 2012
Authorized Budget – Purchased Services $18,542.00
Balance to Date $15,822.16
Note: Does not contain expenditures for Web Site ($5,000), Office Supplies ($750), Board
Travel (March & possibly June - $2,000)), and computer & telecommunication support for
remainder of the fiscal year ($1,800).
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 11
CJIN Governing Board
Governing Board Counsel – Lars Nance, Technical Advisor – Earl Bunting, Administrative Assistant – LaVonda Fowler, Executive Director – Eugene Vardaman
Appointed By Description Current Member
Governor Employee of Department of Crime Control & Public Safety Captain Robert West, NC State Highway Patrol
Governor Director or employee of State Correction Agency Robert Brinson, CIO, Dept. of Public Safety
Governor Representative recommended by the Association of Chiefs of Police Chief Glen Allen, City of Clayton P.D.
Governor Employee of Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention David Jones, Deputy Secretary
Governor Employee of Division of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Mike Robertson
General Assembly Representative of general public, recommended by the President Pro Tempore
of the Senate Robert Lee
General Assembly Representative of general public, recommended by the President Pro Tempore
of the Senate
Doug Logan, Emergency Management Coordinator, Granville
County
General Assembly Individual who is member of or working directly for the governing board of a
NC municipality and recommended by President Pro Tempore of the Senate Crystal Cody, Program Manager, Charlotte/Mecklenburg PD
General Assembly Representative of the general public, recommended by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives Victor Watts
General Assembly Representative of the general public, recommended by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives Norlan Graves, ADA, Halifax County
General Assembly
Individual who is a working member of or working directly for the governing
board of a NC county, recommended by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Todd Jones, Orange County, Chief Information Officer
Attorney General Employee of the Attorney General Renee Robinson, Assistant Director, SBI
Attorney General Representative recommended by the Sheriffs’ Association Sheriff Dewey Jones , Person County
Chief Justice, Supreme Court Director or employee of the Administrative Office of the Courts Basil McVey, Chief Information Officer, AOC
Chief Justice, Supreme Court Clerk of the Superior Court Honorable Mike McArthur, Chowan County
Chief Justice, Supreme Court Judge, trial court of the General Court of Justice Honorable Henry “Chip” Hight, Jr., Superior Court Judge,
District 9
Chief Justice, Supreme Court Judge, trial court of the General Court of Justice Honorable H. Thomas Jarrell, Jr., District Court Judge, Judicial
District 18
Chief Justice, Supreme Court District Attorney Al Williams, Sr. Assistant District Attorney, Judicial District 28
Chief Justice, Supreme Court Magistrate Eric Van Vleet, Durham County
State Chief Information Officer Appointment by the State Chief Information Officer George Bakolia, Deputy State Chief Information Officer
NC Chapter of Public Safety
Communications Officials
International, President
Active member of the NC Chapter of Public Safety Communications Officials
International
Steve Lingerfelt, Information Technology Director, City of High
Point
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 12
DNA Expunction
Background
The Statute
Since February 1, 2011 the North Carolina DNA Database has been in effect. (§ 15A-266.3A)
This Act requires defendants arrested for certain felony offenses to provide DNA samples at
arrest rather than waiting for conviction. These samples are collected by local Law Enforcement
while fingerprinting defendants at arrest. These samples are forwarded to the SBI to be
analyzed and added to the DNA Database. They are then to be used to identify guilty parties as
well as exonerate the innocent. If the defendant is later found not guilty, or pleads guilty to a
misdemeanor not covered by this statute then the SBI is directed to destroy the sample. (Unless
other grounds exist to allow them to keep the sample: i.e. the defendant’s DNA was taken
pursuant to a previous felony conviction)
The Problem for District Attorneys
15A-266(3A) requires that in cases where the defendant has been found not guilty, case
dismissed or never charged the Defendant shall have his DNA sample expunged from the DNA
Database. The statute directs that that the local District Attorney notify the SBI when DNA
should be expunged from the Database. There are several major problems with this
procedure.
1. There is nothing in the current Statute that requires local Law Enforcement and the SBI to
notify the District Attorney that a sample has ever been taken or entered into the DNA
Database.
2. District Attorneys have no supervisory relationship with either of these agencies and in fact
the SBI is supervised by the Attorney General’s office.
3. There is no automated system that currently exists or can be created to assist the District
Attorneys in determining whether a sample was collected or whether the SBI already has
previous samples in its Database. Instead, numerous phone calls and legwork are required to
determine these issues even before analyzing whether the Defendant’s final conviction status
precludes his sample from being kept in the Database.
4. Currently, 26 States collect DNA from either all felony arrestees or certain ones such as North
Carolina. Only 1 State in addition to North Carolina places this burden on their prosecutors.
5. While it may have been contemplated that this process could be automated the District
Attorneys and AOC have not been able to achieve this goal despite great effort for several good
reasons including; complicated arrest scenarios involving one DNA sample taken for more than
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 13
one offense at the time of arrest and different dispositions of those cases on different dates.
Each determination requires human interaction and cannot be computer driven.
6. No additional DA staff or technology staff was provided for in this statute and the
requirements of this statute will delay regular and automated full discovery which the General
Assembly required in all felony cases.
The Solution
The original DNA Database bill put the burden on the Defendant or his counsel to request
expunction if they believed the defendant qualified under the law. There are several good
reasons for this approach.
1. No middleman. The District Attorney, who has no control over any sample taken is out of the
equation and the defendant only has to deal with 1 State agency to get their sample removed.
2. No other criminal expunction statute under NCGS 15A puts the burden on the DA to request
that a case or charge be expunged. The defendant, the person who is in the best position to
know whether he qualifies must start the expunction process.
3. Most States follow this approach and the original Bill placed the burden on the Defendant and
the SBI when it was initially introduced.
Survey of Other States
What States collect DNA on arrest and who is responsible for expunging DNA if applicable?
ALABAMA: Collects DNA Code of Ala. § 36-18-25
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
Upon the reversal of conviction, the director shall be authorized and empowered to
expunge DNA records upon request of the person from whom the sample was taken.
Code of Ala. § 36-18-26
ALASKA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(i) The Department of Public Safety shall destroy the material in the system
relating to a person or minor on the written request of the person or minor,
if the request is accompanied by a certified copy of a court order making
the written findings required by this subsection.
(ii) Alaska Stat. § 44.41.035
ARIZONA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 14
J. If the conviction or adjudication of a person who is subject to this section or section 8-
238 is overturned on appeal or post conviction relief and a final mandate has been
issued, on petition of the person to the superior court in the county in which the
conviction occurred, the court shall order that the person’s deoxyribonucleic acid profile
resulting from that conviction or adjudication be expunged from the Arizona
deoxyribonucleic acid identification system established by section 41-2418 unless the
person has been convicted or adjudicated delinquent of another offense that would
requires the person to submit to deoxyribonucleic acid testing pursuant to this section.
A.R.S. § 13-610
ARKANSAS: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(a) (1) Any person whose DNA record has been included in the State DNA
Database and whose DNA sample is stored in the State DNA Databank may apply
to any circuit court for removal and destruction of the DNA record and DNA sample
on the grounds that the adjudication of guilt that resulted in the inclusion of the
person’s DNA record in the database or the inclusion of the person’s DNA sample
in the databank has been reversed and the case dismissed.
(b) A.C.A. § 12-12-1113
CALIFORNIA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(b) Pursuant to subdivision (a), a person who has no past or present qualifying offense,
and for whom there otherwise is no legal basis for retaining the specimen or sample or
searchable profile, may make a written request to have his or her specimen and sample
destroyed and searchable database profile expunged from the data bank program if:
Cal Pen Code § 299
COLORADO: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(2) A person who qualifies for expungement under subsection (1) of this section may
submit a written request for expungement to the Colorado bureau of investigation. The
request shall include the items listed in this subsection (2) and may include any
additional information that may assist the bureau in locating the records of arrest or
charges or the biological substance sample or testing results. The following information
shall be included in the submitted request:
C.R.S. 16-23-105
CONNECTICUT: Do not collect DNA on arrest
DELAWARE: Do not collect DNA on arrest
FLORIDA: Collects DNA
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 15
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(16) Procedures for removal. –Unless the department determines that a person is
otherwise required by law to submit a DNA sample for inclusion in the statewide DNA
database, the department shall, upon receipt and completion of such verification of the
information noted below as may be required, promptly remove from the statewide DNA
database the DNA analysis and any DNA biological samples that may have been
retained of a person included therein:
(a) On the basis of a conviction for a qualifying offense specified in
subparagraph (2) (g) 2., if the department receives, from the person seeking
removal of DNA information from the statewide DNA database, for each
qualifying offense, a certified copy of a final court order establishing that such
conviction has been overturned on direct appeal or set aside in a post conviction
proceeding; or
Fla. Stat. § 943.325
GEORGIA: Do not collect DNA on arrest
HAWAII: Do not collect DNA on arrest
IDAHO: Do not collect DNA on arrest
ILLINOIS: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(1) A petitioner may petition the circuit court to expunge the records of his or her arrests
and charges not initiated by arrest when:
(2) 20 ILCS 2630/5.2
INDIANA: Do not collect DNA on arrest
IOWA: Do not collect DNA on arrest
KANSAS: Collects DNA
Requires the Defendant to request Expungement
(4) If a court later determines that there was not probable cause for the arrest, charge or
placement in custody or the charges are otherwise dismissed, and the case is not
appealed, the Kansas bureau of investigation, upon petition by such person, shall
expunge both the DNA sample and the profile record of such person.
(5) If a conviction against a person, who is required to submit such specimen or sample,
is expunged or a verdict of acquittal with regard to such person is returned, the Kansas
bureau of investigation shall, upon petition by such person, expunge both the DNA
sample and the profile record of such person.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 16
K.S.A. § 21-2511
KENTUCKY: Do not collect DNA on arrest
LOUISIANA: Collects DNA
Require the Defendant to request Expungement
A. A person whose DNA record or profile has been included in the data base or data
bank pursuant to this Chapter may request that his record or profile be removed on the
following grounds:
(1) The arrest on which the authority for including his DNA record or profile was
based does not result in a conviction or plea agreement resulting in a conviction.
(2) The conviction on which the authority for including his DNA record or profile
was based has been reversed and the case dismissed.
La. R.S. 15:614
MAINE: Do not collect DNA on arrest
MARYLAND: Collects DNA
As of Dec. 2013, will require the Defendant to request Expungement
(A) In general. – An individual whose DNA record or profile is included in the statewide
DNA data base system and whose DNA sample is stored in the statewide DNA
repository may request that information be expunged on the grounds that the conviction
that resulted in the inclusion meets the expungement criteria specified in § 10-105 or §
10-106 of the Criminal Procedure Article.
Md. PUBLIC SAFETY Code Ann. § 2-511
MASSACHUSETTS: Do not collect DNA on arrest
MICHIGAN: Collects DNA
Does not put burden on State to expunge DNA, but State can request it if no
longer necessary for investigation or prosecution
(a) The department receives a written request for disposal from the investigating police
agency or prosecutor indicating that the sample or profile is no longer necessary for a
criminal investigation or criminal prosecution.
(b) The department receives a written request for disposal and a certified copy of a final
court order establishing that the charge for which the sample was obtained has been
dismissed or has resulted in an acquittal or that no charge was filed within the applicable
limitations period
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 17
. MCLS § 28.176
MINNESOTA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(a) The bureau shall destroy the biological specimen and return all records to a person
who submitted a biological specimen under subdivision 1 but who was found not guilty
of a felony. Upon the request of a person who submitted a biological specimen under
subdivision 1 but where the charge against the person was later dismissed, the bureau
shall destroy the person’s biological specimen and return all records to the individual.
Minn. Stat. § 299C.105
MISSISSIPPI: Does not collect DNA on arrest
MISSOURI: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(1) A person whose DNA record or DNA profile has been included in the state DNA
database in accordance with this section, section 488.5050, and sections 650.050,
650.052, and 650.100 may request expungement on the grounds that the conviction
has been reversed, or the guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere on which the
authority for including that person’s DNA record or DNA profile was based has been
set aside.
§ 650.055 R.S.Mo.
MONTANA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
NEBRASKA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
NEVADA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Does not collect DNA on arrest
NEW JERSEY: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(1) Any person whose DNA record or profile has been included in the State DNA
database and whose DNA sample is stored in the State DNA databank may apply for
expungement on the grounds that the conviction that resulted in the inclusion of the
person’s DNA record or profile in the State database or the inclusion of the person’s
DNA sample in the State databank has been reversed and the case dismissed. The
person, either individually or through an attorney, may apply to the court for
expungement of the record. A copy of the application for expungement shall be served
on the prosecutor for the county in which the conviction was obtained not less than 20
days prior to the date of the hearing on the application. A certified copy of the order
reversing and dismissing the conviction shall be attached to an order expunging the
DNA record or profile insofar as its inclusion rests upon that conviction.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 18
N.J. Stat. § 53:1-20.25
NEW MEXICO: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement of arrest information, no specific
DNA expungement statute
1. A person may petition the department to expunge arrest information on the person’s
state record or federal bureau of investigation record if the arrest was for a
misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor offense and the arrest was not for a crime of
moral turpitude. If the department cannot locate a final disposition after contacting
the arresting law enforcement agency, the administrative office of the courts and the
administrative office of the district attorneys, the department shall expunge the arrest
information.
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 29-3-8.1
NEW YORK: Does not collect DNA on arrest
NORTH CAROLINA:
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-266.3
NORTH DAKOTA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
1. An individual whose DNA profile has been included in the database under this chapter
may petition the district court to seal the court record on the grounds that the arrest that
led to the inclusion of the DNA profile has not resulted in a felony charge within one
year; has been resolved by a dismissal, acquittal, or misdemeanor conviction; has not
resulted in a felony conviction; or the conviction on which the authority for including the
DNA profile was based has been reversed or the case dismissed.
N.D. Cent. Code, § 31-13-07
OHIO: Collects DNA
ORC Ann. 2901.07
OKLAHOMA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
OREGON: Does not collect DNA on arrest
PENNSYLVANIA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
RHODE ISLAND: Does not collect DNA on arrest
SOUTH CAROLINA: Collects DNA
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 19
Requires the State to start expungement process
(B) The solicitor in the county in which the person was charged must notify SLED when
the person becomes eligible to have his DNA record and DNA profile expunged. Upon
receiving this notification, SLED must begin the expungement procedure.
S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-660
SOUTH DAKOTA: Collects DNA
Does not put burden on State to expunge DNA
Upon receipt of written request for expungement; certified copy of the final court order
reversing and dismissing the conviction or delinquency adjudication; and any other
information necessary to ascertain the validity of the request, the South Dakota State
Forensic Laboratory shall expunge all DNA records and identifiable information in the
database pertaining to the person and destroy the DNA sample from the person, unless
the South Dakota State Forensic Laboratory determines that the person has otherwise
become obligated to submit a DNA sample.
S.D. Codified Laws § 23-5A-29
TENNESSEE: Collects DNA
Requires the Clerk to notify TBI of final disposition and TBI to destroy DNA if
applicable
1. The clerk of the court in which the charges against a person described in subdivision
I (1) are disposed of shall notify the Tennessee bureau of investigation of final
disposition of the criminal proceedings. If the charge for which the sample was taken
is dismissed or the defendant is acquitted at trial, then the bureau shall destroy the
sample and all records of the sample; provided, that there is no other pending
qualifying warrant or capiases for an arrest or felony conviction that would otherwise
require that the sample remain in the data bank.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-321
TEXAS: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
(1) The director shall expunge a DNA record of an individual from a DNA database if the
person:
(2) notifies the director in writing that the DNA record has been ordered to be expunged
under this section or Chapter 55, Code of Criminal Procedure, and provides the
director with a certified copy of the court order that expunges the DNA record; or
Tex. Gov’t Code § 411.151
UTAH: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 20
(6) A person whose DNA specimen has been obtained under this part may, personally or
through a legal representative, submit to the court a motion for a court order requiring
the destruction of the person’s DNA specimen and any criminal identification record
created in connection with that specimen if:
Utah Code Ann. § 53-10-406
AND Bureau if:
(i) destroy a DNA specimen obtained under this part if criminal charges have not been
filed within 90 days after booking for an alleged offense under Subsection 53-10-
403(2)I; and
Utah Code Ann. § 53-10-406
VERMONT: Collects DNA
Requires the Court or Governor to start expungement process
(b) If any of the circumstances in subsection (a) of this section occur, the court with
jurisdiction or, as the case may be, the governor, shall so notify the department, and the
person’s DNA record in the state DNA database and CODIS and the person’s DNA
sample in the state DNA data bank shall be removed and destroyed. The laboratory
shall purge the DNA record and all other identifiable information from the state DNA
database and CODIS and destroy the DNA sample stored in the state DNA data bank. If
the person has more than one entry in the state DNA database, CODIS, or the state
DNA data bank, only the entry related to the dismissed case shall be deleted. The
department shall notify the person upon completing its responsibilities under this
subsection, by certified mail addressed to the person’s last known address.
20 V.S.A. § 1940
VIRGINIA: Collects DNA
Requires Defendant to request Expungement
A person whose DNA profile has been included in the data bank pursuant to § 19.2-
310.2 may request expungement on the grounds that the felony conviction on which the
authority for including his DNA profile was based has been reversed and the case
dismissed. The Department of Forensic Science shall purge all records and identifiable
information in the data bank pertaining to the person and destroy all samples from the
person upon receipt of (i) a written request for expungement pursuant to this section and
(ii) a certified copy of the court order reversing and dismissing the conviction.
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-310.7
WASHINGTON: Does not collect DNA on arrest
WEST VIRGINIA: Does not collect DNA on arrest
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 21
WISCONSIN: Does not collect DNA on arrest
WYOMING: Does not collect DNA on arrest
Other Sources:
DNA Saves: 26 States Have Passed the Law, http://www.katieslaw.org/ .
State of California DNA Expungement Form
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
STREAMLINED DNA EXPUNGEMENT APPLICATION FORM DLE 244
(Orig. 02/2011)
PAGE 1 of 3
REQUEST TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CAL-DNA DATA BANK
PROGRAM
TO EXPUNGE MY STATE DNA DATABASE PROFILE AND REMOVE MY SAMPLE
I,
(Insert Name) SET FORTH UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY AS FOLLOWS:
1. My name is (Insert legal name and other name(s) used), and my address, or an address
that I can be reached at, is:
2. My email address is: (Insert email address if you have one and would like to be
contacted by email)
3. My Social Security Number (SSN) is; my Date of Birth is; and my Driver’s License Number (or
State Identification Card Number) is.
4. My CA Identification & Information (CII) Number is (Insert number if known).
5. On or about (Date/Year), I provided a DNA sample for inclusion in the CAL-DNA Data Bank
Program (Penal Code section 295 et seq.) to a law enforcement agency in County, under the
name I entered above.
(Name of County where sample taken; Insert prison name if taken at a prison)
6. To the best of my knowledge, the crime for which my DNA database sample was taken was:
(Describe or name crime if known).
7. I contend I am not required by law to provide a DNA Data Bank Sample, and there is no
legal basis for the California Department of Justice to retain my DNA sample, or
searchable DNA profile.
8. I certify to the best of my knowledge that all of the following statements are true:
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 22
1. I have no past or present criminal offense that qualifies me for inclusion in the CAL-DNA
Data Bank Program.
[Note: (1) If you provided a DNA sample after you were validly convicted of a felony, the
fact you subsequently had that felony conviction expunged under Penal Code section
1203.4, or reduced to a misdemeanor, etc., under Penal Code section 17, does not
entitle you to also have your DNA profile expunged or sample removed from the Data
Bank. (See, Cal. Pen. Code, § 299 (f).);
a. If you provided a DNA sample after a conviction for a misdemeanor and had any
past felony conviction at that time, your sample is not eligible for expungement or
removal from the Data Bank. (See, Cal. Pen. Code, § 296.1(a) (2) & (3).).]
b. I have no past or present duty to register as a sex or arson offender. [Note:
Termination of the duty to register does not qualify as a reason for sample
expungement. (See, Pen. Code, § 299I.).]
c. I did not provide a DNA sample as part of a plea bargain.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
STREAMLINED DNA EXPUNGEMENT APPLICATION FORM DLE 244
(Orig. 02/2011)
PAGE 2 of 3
9. I request that the California Department of Justice destroy my DNA sample and expunge my
searchable
DNA database profile as provided for in Penal Code section 299, on the following grounds
(CHECK ONE AND ATTACH THE DOCUMENTATION DESCRIBED):
a. No qualifying felony charges were or will be filed after my arrest. [Attach Letter in
Support of Expungement from a District Attorney or prosecutor, providing the case
name and number, and certifying that no charge(s) will be filed based on the arrest;
or attach a certified or file stamped copy of a complaint reflecting that only
misdemeanor charge(s) were filed based on the arrest.]
b. The felony charge(s) which formed the basis of my DNA sample collection was
dismissed. [Attach a certified or file-stamped copy of the court docket or minute order
dismissing the charge(s), or a trial court’s Clerk Certificate verifying this fact.]
c. The conviction which formed the basis of my DNA collection has been reversed and
the case dismissed. [Attach a certified or file-stamped copy of the court order(s) or
opinion reversing the conviction and dismissing the charge(s).]
d. I have been found factually innocent under Penal Code section 851.8 or Welfare and
Institutions
Code section 781.5 of the offense which qualified me for inclusion in the CAL-DNA Data
Bank Program. [Attach a certified or file-stamped copy of the court docket or minute
order making this finding.]
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 23
e. I was acquitted or found not guilty of the offense which qualified me for inclusion in the
CAL-DNA Data Bank Program. [Attach a certified or file-stamped copy of the court
docket or minute order stating this finding.]
f. My previously sustained delinquency petition alleging an offense that would be a
felony, if committed by an adult, has been reversed and dismissed. [Attach a certified
or file-stamped copy of the court order(s) or opinion reversing the conviction and
dismissing the charge(s).]
10. Additional information supporting my request for DNA sample expungement is as follows:
11. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on: at, State of
(Date) (City) (State)
PRINT NAME:
SIGNATURE (person requesting DNA profile expungement and sample removal)
MAIL THE REQUEST FOR DNA SAMPLE EXPUNGEMENT TO:
Department of Justice CAL-DNA Data Bank Program
Attn. EXPUNGEMENT REQUESTS
1001 West Cutting Blvd., Suite 110
Richmond, CA 94804
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
STREAMLINED DNA EXPUNGEMENT APPLICATION FORM DLE 244
(Orig. 02/2011)
PAGE 3 of 3
Privacy Notice
The information requested on this form is being requested by the State of California,
Department of Justice (DOJ), Division of Law Enforcement, CAL-DNA Data Bank Program, for
the purpose of determining eligibility for DNA sample/profile removal and expungement through
use of DOJ’s streamlined procedures. The maintenance of the information collected on this form
is authorized by Penal Code Section 299. All information requested on this form is voluntary.
However, failure to provide the requested information/documentation (e.g. identity, legal status
and criminal history), as applicable, to enable DOJ to make a determination regarding a
sample/profile’s eligibility for removal/expungement, will likely result in denial of the DNA
sample/profile removal and expungement request. Your information provided on this form may
be disclosed to federal, state and/or local law enforcement agencies, probation and parole
officers, your attorney, and attorneys for the Department of Justice, and/or courts. Pursuant to
Civil Code Section 1798.30 et seq., individuals have the right [with some exceptions] to access
records containing the personal information about themselves that are maintained by the
agency. The CAL-DNA Data Bank Program is the agency official responsible for the system of
records that maintains the information provided on this form. For more information regarding the
location of your records and the categories of any persons who use the information in those
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 24
records, you may contact the CAL-DNA Data Bank Program, Department of Justice, at 1001
West Cutting Blvd., Suite 110, Richmond, CA 94804, or via telephone at (510) 620-3300.
North Carolina HB1403
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2009
SESSION LAW 2010-94
HOUSE BILL 1403
*H1403-v-3*
AN ACT TO REQUIRE THAT A DNA SAMPLE BE TAKEN FROM ANY PERSON ARRESTED
FOR COMMITTING CERTAIN OFFENSES, AND TO AMEND THE STATUTES THAT
PROVIDE FOR A DNA SAMPLE UPON CONVICTION.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as “The DNA Database Act of 2010.”
SECTION 2. G.S. 15A-266.2 reads as rewritten:
“§ 15A-266.2. Definitions. As used in this Article, unless another meaning is specified or
the context clearly requires otherwise, the following terms have the meanings specified:
(1) “CODIS” means the FBI’s national DNA identification index system that allows the
storage and exchange of DNA records submitted by federal, State and local forensic
DNA laboratories. The term “CODIS” is derived from Combined DNA Index System.
System (NDIS) administered and operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(1a) “Custodial Agency” means the governmental entity in possession of evidence
collected as part of a criminal investigation or prosecution. This term includes a
central evidence storage facility operated by a State agency.
(2) “DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA is located in the nucleus of cells and
provides an individual’s personal genetic blueprint. DNA encodes genetic information
that is the basis of human heredity and forensic identification.
(3) “DNA Record” means DNA identification information stored in the State DNA
Database or CODIS for the purpose of generating investigative leads or supporting
statistical interpretation of DNA test results. The DNA record is the result obtained
from the DNA typing tests. Analysis. The DNA record is comprised of the
characteristics of a DNA sample which are of value in establishing the identity of
individuals. The results of all DNA identification tests analyses on an individual’s
DNA sample are also collectively referred to as the DNA profile of an individual.
(4) “DNA Sample” in this Article means a blood, buccal, cheek swabs, or any other
biological sample containing cells provided by any person with respect to convicted
of offenses covered by this Article or submitted to the SBI Laboratory State Bureau
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 25
of Investigation pursuant to this Article for analysis pursuant to a criminal
investigation or storage or both.
(5) “FBI” means the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(5a) “NDIS” means the National DNA Index System that is the national DNA database
system of DNA profile records which that meet federal quality assurance and privacy
standards.
(6) “SBI” means the State Bureau of Investigation. The SBI is responsible for the policy
management policy, management, and administration of the State DNA identification
record system to support law enforcement, and for liaison with the FBI regarding the
State’s participation in CODIS enforcement and other criminal justice agencies.
(7) “State DNA Database” means the SBI’s DNA identification record system to support
law enforcement. It is administered by the SBI and provides DNA records to the FBI for
storage and maintenance in CODIS. The SBI’s DNA Page 2 Session Law 2010-94
SL2010-0094 Database system is the collective capability provided by computer
software and procedures administered by the SBI to store and maintain DNA records
related to forensic casework, to convicted offenders required to provide a DNA sample
under this Article, and to anonymous DNA records used for research or quality control.
To: forensic casework; convicted offenders and arrestees required to provide a DNA
sample under this Article; persons required to register as sex offenders under G.S. 14-
208.7; unidentified persons or body parts; missing persons; relatives of missing persons;
and anonymous DNA profiles used for forensic validation, forensic protocol
development, or quality control purposes or establishment of a population statistics
database for use by criminal justice agencies.
(8) “State DNA Databank” means the repository of DNA samples collected under the
provisions of this Article.
(9) “Criminal Justice Agency” means an agency or institution of a federal, State, or local
government, other than the office of the public defender, that performs as part of its
principal function, activities relating to the apprehension, investigation, prosecution,
adjudication, incarceration, supervision, or rehabilitation of criminal offenders.
(10) “Arrestee” means any person arrested for an offense in G.S. 15A-266.3A (d) or I.
(11) “Conviction” includes a conviction by a jury or a court, a guilty plea, a plea of nolo
contendere, or a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity or mental disease or defect.”
SECTION 3. G.S. 15A-266.3 reads as rewritten:
“§ 15A-266.3. Procedural compatibility with the FBI establishment of State DNA database and
databank. The DNA identification system as established by the SBI shall be compatible with the
procedures specified by the FBI, including use of comparable test procedures, laboratory
equipment, supplies, and computer software. There is established under the administration of
the SBI, the State DNA Database and State DNA Databank. The SBI shall provide DNA records
to the FBI for the searching of DNA records nationwide and storage and maintenance by
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 26
CODIS. The State DNA Databank shall serve as the repository for DNA samples obtained
pursuant to this Article. The State DNA Database shall be compatible with the procedures
specified by the FBI, including use of comparable test procedures, laboratory and computer
equipment, supplies and computer platform and software. The State DNA Database shall have
the capability provided by computer software and procedures administered by the SBI to store
and maintain DNA records related to all of the following:
(1) Crime scene evidence and forensic casework.
(2) Arrestees, offenders, and persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, who are
required to provide a DNA sample under this Article.
(3) Persons required to register as sex offenders under G.S. 14-208.7.
(4) Unidentified persons or body parts.
(5) Missing persons.
(6) Relatives of missing persons.
(7) Anonymous DNA profiles used for forensic validation, forensic protocol development,
or quality control purposes or establishment of a population statistics database, for use
by criminal justice agencies.”
SECTION 4. Article 13 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes is amended by
adding a new section to read:
“§ 15A-266.3A. DNA sample required for DNA analysis upon arrest for certain offenses.
(a)Unless a DNA sample has previously been obtained by lawful process and the DNA
record stored in the State DNA Database, and that record and sample has not been
expunged pursuant to any provision of law, a DNA sample for DNA analysis and testing
shall be obtained from any person who is arrested for committing an offense described in
subsection (d) or I of this section.
(b)The arresting law enforcement officer shall obtain, or cause to be obtained, a DNA
sample from an arrested person at the time of arrest, or when fingerprinted. However, if the
person is arrested without a warrant, then the DNA sample shall not be taken until a
probable cause determination has been made pursuant to G.S. 15A-511(c)(1). The DNA
sample shall be SL2010-0094 Session Law 2010-94 Page 3 by cheek swab unless a court
order authorizes that a DNA blood sample be obtained. If a DNA blood sample is taken, it
shall comply with the requirements of G.S. 15A-266.6(b). The arresting law enforcement
officer shall forward, or cause to be forwarded, the DNA sample to the appropriate
laboratory for DNA analysis and testing.
(b1) At the time a DNA sample is taken pursuant to this section, the person obtaining the
DNA sample shall record, on a form promulgated by the SBI, the date and time the sample
was taken, the name of the person taking the DNA sample, the name and address of the
person from whom the sample was taken, and the offense or offenses for which the person
was arrested. This record shall be maintained in the case file and shall be available to the
prosecuting district attorney for the purpose of completing the requirements of subsection
(g1) of this section.
(b2) After taking a DNA sample from an arrested person required to provide a DNA sample
pursuant to this section, the person taking the DNA sample shall provide the arrested
person with a written notice of the procedures for seeking an expunction of the DNA sample
pursuant to subsections (f), (g), (g1), (g2), and (g3) of this section. The Department of
Justice shall provide the written notice required by this subsection.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 27
(b3) I The DNA record of identification characteristics resulting from the DNA testing and
the DNA sample itself shall be stored and maintained by the SBI in the State DNA
Databank pursuant to this Article.
(b4) This section shall apply to a person arrested for violating any one of the following
offenses in Chapter 14 of the General Statutes:
(1) G.S. 14-17, First and Second Degree Murder.
(2) G.S. 14-18, Manslaughter.
(3) Any offense in Article 7A, Rape and Other Sex Offenses.
(4) G.S. 14-32, Felonious assault with deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflicting
serious injury; G.S. 14-32.4(a), Assault inflicting serious bodily injury; G.S. 14-34.2,
Assault with a firearm or other deadly weapon upon governmental officers or employees,
company police officers, or campus police officers; G.S. 14-34.5, Assault with a firearm
on a law enforcement, probation, or parole officer or on a person employed at a State or
local detention facility; G.S. 14-34.6, Assault or affray on a firefighter, an emergency
medical technician, medical responder, emergency department nurse, or emergency
department physician; and G.S. 14-34.7, Assault inflicting serious injury on a law
enforcement, probation, or parole officer or on a person employed at a State or local
detention facility.
(5) Any offense in Article 10, Kidnapping and Abduction, or Article 10A, Human
Trafficking.
(6) G.S. 14-51, First and second degree burglary; G.S. 14-53, Breaking out of dwelling
house burglary; G.S. 14-54.1, Breaking or entering a place of religious worship; and G.S.
14-57, Burglary with explosives.
(7) Any offense in Article 15, Arson.
(8) G.S. 14-87, Armed robbery.
(9) Any offense which would require the person to register under the provisions of Article
27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes, Sex Offender and Public Protection
Registration Programs.
(10) G.S. 14-196.3, Cyber stalking.
(11) G.S. 14-277.3A, Stalking.
I This section shall also apply to a person arrested for attempting, solicitation of another
to commit, conspiracy to commit, or aiding and abetting another to commit, any of the
violations included in subsection (d) of this section.
(f) The State Bureau of Investigation shall remove a person’s DNA record, and destroy
any DNA biological samples that may have been retained, from the State DNA Database
and DNA Databank if both of the following are determined pursuant to subsection (g) of
this section:
(1) As to the charge, or all charges, resulting from the arrest upon which a DNA
sample is required under this section, a court or the district attorney has taken
action resulting in any one of the following:
a. The charge has been dismissed.
b. The person has been acquitted of the charge. Page 4 Session Law
2010-94 SL2010-0094
c. The defendant is convicted of a lesser-included misdemeanor offense
that is not an offense included in subsection (d) or I of this section.
d. No charge was filed within the statute of limitations, if any.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 28
e. No conviction has occurred, at least three years has passed since the
date of arrest, and no active prosecution is occurring.
(2) The person’s DNA record is not required to be in the State DNA Database
under some other provision of law, or is not required to be in the State DNA
Database based upon an offense from a different transaction or occurrence from
the one which was the basis for the person’s arrest.
(g) Prior to June 1, 2012, upon the occurrence of one of the events in sub-subdivision d.
or e. of subdivision (1) of subsection (f) of this section, the defendant or the defendant’s
counsel shall provide the prosecuting district attorney with a signed request form,
promulgated by the Administrative Office of the Courts, requesting that the defendant’s
DNA record be expunged from the DNA Database and that any biological samples in the
DNA Databank be destroyed. On or after June 1, 2012, upon the occurrence of one of
the events in sub-subdivision d. or e. of subdivision (1) of subsection (f) of this section,
no request form shall be required and the prosecuting district attorney shall initiate the
procedure provided in subsection (g1) of this section.
(g1) Prior to June 1, 2012, within 30 days of the receipt of the form required by
subsection (g) of this section or the occurrence of one of the events in sub-subdivision
a., b., or c. of subdivision (1) of subsection (f) of this section; and on or after June 1,
2012, within 30 days of the occurrence of one of the events in subdivision (1) of
subsection (f) of this section, the prosecuting district attorney shall determine if a DNA
sample was taken pursuant to this section, and if so, shall:
(1) Verify and indicate the facts of the qualifying event on a verification form
promulgated by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
(2) Include the last known address of the defendant, as reflected in the court
files, on the verification form.
(3) Sign the verification form or, if the defendant was acquitted or the charges
were dismissed by the court, obtain the signature of a judge.
(4) Transmit the verification form to the SBI.
(g2) Within 30 days of receipt of the verification form, the SBI shall:
(1) Determine whether the requirement of subdivision (2) of subsection (f) of this
section has been met.
(2) If the requirement has been met, remove the defendant’s DNA record and
samples as required by subsection (f) of this section.
(3) Mail to the defendant, at the address specified in the verification form, a
notice either:
a. Documenting expunction of the DNA record and destruction of the DNA
sample, or
b. Notifying the defendant that the DNA record and sample do not qualify
for expunction pursuant to subsection (f) of this section.(g3) The
defendant may file a motion with the court to review the denial of the
defendant’s request or the failure of either the district attorney or the SBI
to act within the prescribed time period.
(h) Any identification, warrant, probable cause to arrest, or arrest based upon a
database match of the defendant’s DNA sample which occurs after the expiration of the
statutory periods prescribed for expunction of the defendant’s DNA sample, shall be
invalid and 28inadmissible in the prosecution of the defendant for any criminal offense.
(i) Notwithstanding subsection
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 29
(f) Of this section, the SBI is not required to destroy or remove an item of physical
evidence obtained from a sample if evidence relating to another person would thereby
be destroyed. (j) The SBI shall adopt procedures to comply with this section.”
SECTION 5. G.S. 15A-266.4 reads as rewritten:
“§ 15A-266.4. Blood sample DNA sample required for DNA analysis upon conviction or
finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(a) Unless a DNA sample has previously been obtained by lawful process and a record
stored in the State DNA database, Database, and that sample has record and
sample have not SL2010-0094 Session Law 2010-94 Page 5 been expunged
pursuant to G.S. 15A-148, on or after December 1, 2003, a person any provision of
law, a person:
(1) Who is convicted of any of the crimes listed in subsection (b) of this section or
who is found not guilty of any of these crimes by reason of insanity and
committed to a mental health facility in accordance with G.S. 15A-1321G.S. 15A-
1321, shall have provide a DNA sample drawn upon intake to jail, prison, or the
mental health facility. In addition, every person convicted on or after December 1,
2003, of any of these crimes, but who is not sentenced to a term of confinement,
shall provide a DNA sample as a condition of the sentence.
(2) A person who has been convicted and incarcerated as a result of a conviction
of one or more of these crimes prior to December 1, 2003, the crimes listed in
subsection (b) of this section, or who was found not guilty of any of these crimes
by reason of insanity and committed to a mental health facility in accordance with
G.S. 15A-1321 before December 1, 2003,G.S. 15A-1321, shall have provide a
DNA sample drawn before parole or release from the penal system or before
release from the mental health facility.
(b) Crimes covered by this Article include all of the following:
(1) All felonies.
(2) G.S. 14-32.1 – Assaults on handicapped persons.
(3) G.S. 14-277.3A or former G.S. 14-277.3 – Stalking.
(4) G.S. 14-27.5A – Sexual battery.
(5) All offenses described in G.S. 15A-266.3A.”
SECTION 6. G.S. 15A-266.5 reads as rewritten: “§ 15A-266.5. Tests to be performed on blood
sample.DNA sample.
(a) The tests to be performed on each blood DNA sample are:
(1) To analyze and type only the genetic markers that are used for identification
purposes contained in or derived from the DNA.
(2) For law enforcement identification purposes.
(3) For research and administrative purposes, including
a. Development of a population database when personal identifying
information is removed.
b. To support identification research and protocol development of forensic
DNA analysis methods.
c. For quality control purposes.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 30
d. To assist in the recovery or identification of human remains from mass
disasters or for other humanitarian purposes, including identification of
missing persons.
(b) The DNA record of identification characteristics resulting from the DNA testing shall
be stored and maintained by the SBI in the State DNA Database. The DNA sample
itself will be stored and maintained by the SBI in the State DNA Databank.
(c) I The SBI shall report annually to the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental
Operations and to the Joint Legislative Corrections, Crime Control and Juvenile
Justice Oversight Committee, on or before February 1, with information for the
previous calendar year, which shall include: a summary of the operations and
expenditures relating to the DNA Database and DNA Databank; the number of DNA
records from arrestees entered; the number of DNA records from arrestees that have
been expunged; and the number of DNA arrestee matches or hits that occurred with
an unknown sample, and how many of those have led to an arrest and conviction;
and how many letters notifying defendants that a record and sample have been
expunged, along with the number of days it took to complete the expunction and
notification process, from the date of the receipt of the verification form from the
State.
(d) The Department of Justice, in consultation with the Administrative Office of the
Courts and the Conference of District Attorneys, shall study, develop, and
recommend an automated procedure to facilitate the process of expunging DNA
samples and records taken pursuant to G.S. 15A-266.3A, and shall report to the
Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations, the Joint Legislative
Corrections, Crime Control and Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee, and the
Courts Commission, on or before February 1, 2011.”
SECTION 7. G.S. 15A-266.6 reads as rewritten: Page 6 Session Law 2010-94 SL2010-0094 “§
15A-266.6. Procedures for withdrawal of blood sample for obtaining DNA analysis. Sample for
analysis; refusal to provide sample.
1. Each DNA sample required to be drawn provided pursuant to G.S. 15A-266.4 from
persons who are incarcerated shall be drawn obtained at the place of incarceration.
DNA
Samples from persons who are not sentenced to a term of confinement shall be drawn
obtained immediately following sentencing. The sentencing court shall order any person
not sentenced to a term of confinement, who has not previously provided a DNA sample
pursuant to any provision of law requiring a sample and whose DNA record and sample
have not been expunged pursuant to law, to report immediately following sentencing to
the location designated by the sheriff. If the sample cannot be taken immediately, the
sheriff shall inform the court of the date, time, and location at which the sample shall be
taken, and the court shall enter that date, time, and location into its order. A copy of the
court order indicating the date, time, and location the person is to appear to have a
sample taken shall be given to the sheriff. If a person not sentenced to a term of
confinement fails to appear immediately following sentencing or at the date, time, and
location designated in the court order, the sheriff shall inform the court of the failure to
appear and the court may issue an order to show cause pursuant to G.S. 5A-15 and
may issue an order for arrest pursuant to G.S. 5A-16. The defendant shall continue to be
subject to the court’s order to provide a DNA sample until such time as his or her DNA
sample is analyzed and a record is successfully entered into the State DNA Database.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 31
2. If, for any reason, the defendant provides a DNA blood sample instead of a cheek
swab, only a correctional health nurse technician, physician, registered professional
nurse, licensed practical nurse, laboratory technician, phlebotomist, or other health
care worker with phlebotomy training shall draw any the DNA blood sample to be
submitted for analysis. No civil liability shall attach to any person authorized to draw
blood by this section as a result of drawing blood from any person if the blood was
drawn according to recognized medical procedures. No person shall be relieved from
liability for negligence in the drawing of any obtaining a DNA sample by any method.
3. I The SBI shall provide to the sheriff the materials and supplies the materials,
supplies, and postage prepaid envelopes necessary to draw obtain a DNA sample
from a person not sentenced to a term of confinement. Required to provide a DNA
sample pursuant to this Article and to forward the DNA sample to the appropriate
laboratory for DNA analysis and testing. Any DNA sample drawn from a person not
sentenced to a term of confinement obtained pursuant to this Article, other than a
DNA sample obtained from a person who is incarcerated, shall be taken using the
materials and supplies provided by the SBI.”
SECTION 8. G.S. 15A-266.7 reads as rewritten: “§ 15A-266.7. Procedures for conducting DNA
analysis of blood DNA sample. The SBI shall adopt rules governing the procedures to be used
in the submission, identification, analysis, and storage of DNA samples and typing results of
DNA samples submitted under this Article. The DNA sample shall be securely stored in the
State Databank. The typing results shall be securely stored in the State Database. These
procedures shall also include quality assurance guidelines to insure that DNA identification
records meet standards and audit standards for laboratories which submit DNA records to the
State Database. Records of testing shall be retained on file at the SBI.
(a) The SBI shall:
(1) Adopt procedures to be used in the collection, security, submission,
identification, analysis, and storage of DNA samples and typing results of DNA
samples submitted under this Article. These procedures shall also include quality
assurance guidelines to insure that DNA identification records meet audit
standards for laboratories which submit DNA records to the State DNA
Database.
(2) Adopt Quality Assurance Guidelines for DNA Testing Laboratories and DNA
Data basing Laboratories that meet or exceed the quality assurance guidelines
established for such laboratories by the CODIS unit of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
4. DNA samples shall be securely stored in the State DNA Databank. The typing results
shall be securely stored in the State DNA Database.
5. I Records of testing shall be retained on file at the SBI.”
SECTION 9. G.S. 15A-266.8 reads as rewritten: SL2010-0094 Session Law 2010-94 Page 7
“§ 15A-266.8. DNA database exchange.
1. It shall be the duty of the SBI to receive DNA samples, to store, to analyze or to
contract out the DNA typing analysis to a qualified DNA laboratory that meets the
guidelines as established by the SBI, classify, and file the DNA record of
identification characteristic profiles of DNA samples submitted pursuant to G.S. 15A-
266.7 this Article and to make such information available as provided in this section.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 32
The SBI may contract out DNA typing analysis to a qualified DNA laboratory that
meets guidelines as established by the SBI. The results of the DNA profile of
individuals in the State Database shall be made available to local, State, or federal
law enforcement agencies, approved crime laboratories which serve these agencies,
or the district attorney’s office upon written or electronic request and in furtherance of
an official investigation of a criminal offense. These records shall also be available
upon receipt of a valid court order directing the SBI to release these results to
appropriate parties not listed above, when the court order is signed by a superior
court judge after a hearing. The SBI shall maintain a file of such court orders.
2. The SBI shall adopt rules governing the methods of obtaining information from the
State Database and CODIS and procedures for verification of the identity and
authority of the requester.
3. I The SBI shall create a separate population database comprised of blood DNA
samples obtained under this Article, after all personal identification is removed.
Nothing shall prohibit the SBI from sharing or disseminating population databases
with other law enforcement agencies, crime laboratories that serve them, or other
third parties the SBI deems necessary to assist the SBI with statistical analysis of the
SBI’s population databases. The population database may be made available to and
searched by other agencies participating in the CODIS system.”
SECTION 10. G.S. 15A-266.11 reads as rewritten: “§ 15A-266.11. Unauthorized uses of DNA
Databank; penalties.
1. Any person who, by virtue of employment, or official position, who has possession of,
or access to, individually identifiable DNA information contained in the State DNA
Database or Databank and who willfully discloses it in any manner to any person or
agency not entitled to receive it is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor in accordance
with G.S. 14-3.Class H felony.
2. Any person who, without authorization, willfully obtains individually identifiable DNA
information from the State DNA Database or Databank is guilty of a Class 1
misdemeanor in accordance with G.S. 14-3.Class H felony.”
SECTION 11. G.S. 15A-266.12 reads as rewritten: “§ 15A-266.12. Confidentiality of records.
1. All DNA profiles and samples submitted to the SBI pursuant to this Article shall be
treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed to or shared with any person or
agency except as provided in G.S. 15A-266.8.
2. Only DNA records and samples that directly relate to the identification of individuals
shall be collected and stored. These records and samples shall solely be used as a
part of the criminal justice system for the purpose of facilitating the personal
identification of the perpetrator of a criminal offense; provided that in appropriate
circumstances such records may be used to identify potential victims of mass
disasters or missing persons.
3. IDNA records and DNA samples submitted to the SBI pursuant to this Article are not
a public record as defined by G.S. 132-1.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 33
4. In the case of a criminal proceeding, requests to access a person’s DNA record shall
be in accordance with the rules for criminal discovery as defined in G.S. 15A-902.
The SBI shall not be required to provide the State DNA Database for criminal
discovery purposes.
I DNA records and DNA samples submitted to the SBI may only be released for the
following authorized purposes:
(1) For law enforcement identification purposes, including the identification of
human remains, to federal, State, or local criminal justice agencies.
(2) For criminal defense and appeal purposes, to a defendant who shall have
access to samples and analyses performed in connection with the case in which
such defendant is charged or was convicted.
(3) If personally identifiable information is removed to local, State, or federal law
enforcement agencies for forensic validation studies, forensic protocol Page 8
Session Law 2010-94 SL2010-0094 development or quality control purposes,
and for establishment or maintenance of a population statistics database.
(f) In order to maintain the computer system security of the SBI DNA database program,
the computer software and database structures used by the SBI to implement this Article
are confidential.”
SECTION 12. Article 23 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new
section to read: “§ 15A-502A. DNA sample upon arrest. A DNA sample shall be obtained from
any person arrested for an offense designated under G.S. 15A-266.3A, in accordance with the
provisions contained in Article 13 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes.”
SECTION 12.1. G.S. 15A-534(a) reads as rewritten:
SECTION 12. Article 23 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new
section to read: “§ 15A-502A. DNA sample upon arrest. A DNA sample shall be obtained from
any person arrested for an offense designated under G.S. 15A-266.3A, in accordance with the
provisions contained in Article 13 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes.”
SECTION 12.1. G.S. 15A-534(a) reads as rewritten:
“(a) In determining conditions of pretrial release a judicial official must impose at least
one of the following conditions:
(1) Release the defendant on his written promise to appear.
(2) Release the defendant upon his execution of an unsecured appearance bond
in an amount specified by the judicial official.
(3) Place the defendant in the custody of a designated person or organization
agreeing to supervise him.
(4) Require the execution of an appearance bond in a specified amount secured
by a cash deposit of the full amount of the bond, by a mortgage pursuant to G.S.
58-74-5, or by at least one solvent surety.
(5) House arrest with electronic monitoring. If condition (5) is imposed, the
defendant must execute a secured appearance bond under subdivision (4) of this
subsection. If condition (3) is imposed, however, the defendant may elect to
execute an appearance bond under subdivision (4). If the defendant is required
to provide fingerprints pursuant to G.S. 15A-502(a1) or (a2), or a DNA sample
pursuant to G.S. 15A-266.3A or G.S. 15A-266.4, and (i) the fingerprints or DNA
sample have not yet been taken or (ii) the defendant has refused to provide the
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 34
fingerprints or DNA sample, the judicial official shall make the collection of the
fingerprints or DNA sample a condition of pretrial release. The judicial official
may also place restrictions on the travel, associations, conduct, or place of abode
of the defendant as conditions of pretrial release.”
SECTION 13. G.S. 7B-2201 reads as rewritten: “§ 7B-2201. Fingerprinting and DNA sample
from juvenile transferred to superior court.
1. When jurisdiction over a juvenile is transferred to the superior court, the juvenile shall
be fingerprinted and the juvenile’s fingerprints shall be sent to the State Bureau of
Investigation.
2. When jurisdiction over a juvenile is transferred to the superior court, a DNA sample
shall be taken from the juvenile if any of the offenses for which the juvenile is
transferred are included in the provisions of G.S. 15A-266.3A.”
SECTION 14. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision is held invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity does not affect other provisions of the act that can be
given effect without the invalid provision. SL2010-0094 Session Law 2010-94 Pages 9
SECTION 15. This act becomes effective February 1, 2011.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 10th day of July, 2010.
S/ Walter H. Dalton
President of the Senate
S/ Joe Hackney
Speaker of the House of Representatives
S/ Beverly E. Perdue
Governor
Approved 10:30 a.m. this 15th day of July, 2010
DOJ Report
The following report was prepared by the North Carolina Department of Justice and provides the
background information for expanding DNA testing:
North Carolina Department of Justice
Targeting Violent Criminals by Investing in DNA
February 1, 2011
While traditional investigations and detective work will always be integral to law enforcement,
fighting crime has become increasingly reliant on technological and scientific advancement.
DNA may be one of the most important crime fighting tools of modern times. Advances in
technology have benefited the criminal justice system in many ways. In countless cases, DNA
has identified the suspects, convicted the guilty, cleared suspects, and brought closure to
victims and victims’ families. In other cases, DNA has exonerated the innocent.
Chewing gum, hair and even cigarette butts left at a crime scene can lead detectives to the right
suspect thanks to DNA analysis. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a unique genetic fingerprint
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 35
found in every cell of the human body. Just a tiny trace of the criminal’s saliva or blood left
behind at a crime scene can yield a DNA profile, which then can be compared to DNA samples
from known criminals, arrestees or other crime scene evidence for a match.
DNA technology is perhaps most promising when used to solve crimes without an apparent
suspect. In a rape case, for example, the victim may not be able to identify her attacker. When
investigators examine evidence collected from the victim, they are often able to obtain a DNA
sample from her attacker. This evidence can then be compared to thousands of DNA profiles
included in the state and national DNA database, commonly called the CODIS system. If the
comparison yields a match to an offender, the rapist can be identified and brought to justice.
Attorney General Roy Cooper has led the push in North Carolina to use DNA technology to
solve crimes and bring justice to victims by: 1) expanding the DNA database to include DNA
samples from all convicted felons and certain arrestees; 2) making sure that no-suspect rape
kits are quickly screened and analyzed, with any DNA evidence uncovered used to search the
DNA database to pinpoint suspects; 3) speeding the review, audit and uploading of convicted
offender and arrestee samples into the DNA database; and 4) helping local law enforcement
respond to cold case DNA database hits.
The State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) is bringing advanced DNA technology to North
Carolina’s crime fighters with dramatic results. Thanks to increased investment by the General
Assembly, federal grant funding, and the dedicated efforts of the men and women of the SBI,
the SBI has helped catch more murderers, rapists and other criminals in 2010 alone than in the
first ten years of the program combined. In 2010, the SBI had a total of 420 DNA database hits,
a 57 percent increase in DNA database hits over year 2009 alone. Since criminals, and
especially rapists, often strike again, a database “hit” can crack a cold case.
The SBI has made remarkable progress in screening, processing, analyzing and conducting
subsequent DNA database comparisons to crime scene evidence. In no-suspect cases, a DNA
analyst can compare a DNA profile developed from crime scene evidence to more than 203,000
DNA profiles in the SBI’s DNA database to see if there is a match. If a profile match occurs, this
is commonly referred to as a “CODIS” hit, meaning a match to the Combined DNA Index
System. Once a CODIS hit is made, it must be confirmed according to FBI requirements. This is
accomplished by re-analyzing the original sample that was taken from the convicted offender or
arrestee, which is stored at the SBI Crime Lab. The thumbprint taken at that time is also
compared to the convicted offender’s or arrestee’s fingerprints on file in the SBI fingerprint
database to confirm that the convicted offender or arrestee was the person giving the DNA
sample. After this “in-house” confirmation is complete, a search warrant is written and served on
the convicted offender or arrestee to obtain another sample of DNA. This sample is analyzed
again to definitively confirm that indeed was the person whose DNA was identified in the original
forensic evidence (crime scene evidence).
DNA technology is a remarkable crime fighting tool that can pinpoint or eliminate suspects, help
local law enforcement officers take violent criminals off the streets and strengthen the public
confidence in the criminal justice system. The SBI Crime Laboratory’s dramatic success fosters
an increasing demand for DNA services from local law enforcement and prosecutors. The SBI is
meeting this challenge head on with conclusive results. Beginning February 1, 2011 law
enforcement will begin collecting DNA from certain arrestees pursuant to the DNA Database Act
of 2010.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 36
We must continue to invest in the SBI to meet the growing demands from law enforcement,
prosecutors and the criminal justice system for SBI forensic laboratory services.
Summary of the Operations of the DNA Database Unit for 2010
2010 CODIS/Database Statistics
CODIS Hits for 2010: 420 (268 for 2009)
Convicted Offenders Uploaded: 18,346 (16,266 for 2009)
Forensic Samples Uploaded: 739 (766 for 2009)
2010 DNA Database Expenses (Convicted Offender Samples)
SBI Staff Costs to Process DNA CODIS Samples $ 228,421.05
(Includes 100% quality control review of all samples)
Private Laboratory expenses to process DNA CODIS Samples $ 348,583.46
Other operating expenses (e.g. supplies) $ 69,981.62
TOTAL 2010 DNA Database Expenses $ 646,986.13
In addition to the above noted expenses, the DOJ has entered into a technology services
agreement, valued at $250,450 with Morphotrak, Inc. that will modify and upgrade all fingerprint
workstations in state and local law enforcement offices. These system changes will ensure that
the local booking process for arrestee suspects will simplify data entry and processing
procedures when DNA cheek swabs are taken from arrestees along with fingerprint records.
On November 10, 2010, the DOJ concluded a competitive procurement process for the
processing of DNA arrestee samples and provision of cheek swab collection kits. The selected
vendor was Bode Technology Group (ISO Accredited Forensic Laboratory). The annual contract
value may vary from $900,000 to $1.9 million a year depending on the volume of samples
submitted for analysis and number of collection kits distributed to local law enforcement
agencies.
Staffing – A total of seven new positions have been established to support the DNA on arrest
initiative. The General Assembly approved 4.0 new DNA forensic scientist positions as part of
the 2010/2011 budget. An additional 3.0 receipt supported positions were also approved and
are funded by the new $2.00 DNA court fees authorized pursuant to Section 7.1 of SL 2010-
147.
New $2.00 Court Fee – Effective October 1, 2010, the DOJ started receiving court fee
collections pursuant to a newly authorized $2.00 DNA court fee (see Section 7.1 of SL 2010-
147). From October through December 2010, the DOJ has received $83,352 in collections, an
average of $27,784 a month.
The Department will continue to monitor revenues and expenses associated with the DNA
Database Unit to ensure adequate funding is available to efficiently and effectively process
arrestee samples.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 37
Arrestee Collection Kits
With the passing of the DNA Database Act of 2010 in July of 2010, the Database Unit shifted
gears and began preparing for the added processing and review of arrestee samples to be
collected beginning February 1, 2011. During the months of July through December 2010, the
analysis and production of DNA collection kits was placed on bid and the contract was awarded
to one vendor. The DNA collection kit was designed by the SBI, and the production of the DNA
collection kits began in December of 2010. The DNA collection kits were received by the SBI
and were disseminated to all law enforcement agencies during the weeks of January 17 and
January 24, 2011. This standardized collection kit will be used specifically for the collection of
DNA from certain convicted offenders and arrestees.
Expungement
An expungement procedure has passed SBI legal and lab management reviews. This
procedure was submitted to the FBI for their approval on January 14, 2011 and approved on
January 18, 2011. The expungement procedure outlines how expungement will be completed
as directed by G.S. 15A-266.3(A). If the arrestee qualifies for expungement, the DNA sample
will be removed from the SBI DNA Databank and destroyed. Also, the DNA record will be
removed from the SBI DNA Database and CODIS. The individual will be notified by letter
whether or not his/her sample qualified for expungement. Multiple reviews were built into the
expungement procedure to ensure that the process is completed as required by law.
G.S. 15A-266.3A provides a process by which a defendant’s DNA sample taken at arrest may
be expunged upon the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of certain events in the prosecution of
the defendant. As directed by G.S. 15A-266.5 (d), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) have studied the options for automating the
expunction process.
Beginning June 1, 2012, G.S.15A-266.3A (b1) directs that defendants will no longer have to
request expunction. Instead, prosecutors are directed to initiate the process within thirty (30)
days of the occurrence of one of the qualifying events enumerated in the statute. Both agencies
agree that, under the procedures currently mandated by G.S. 15A-266.3A, the only potential
automation is for the AOC to develop automated reporting to notify the District Attorney (DA) of
cases potentially eligible for DNA expunction, from which the DA may verify the cases’ eligibility.
This automated list could be generated through the District Attorney’s component of the
Criminal Court Information System (CCIS). This function was not part of the original system
design and would require additional development time. The added expenses of this additional
functionality were not included in original cost estimates and would require either additional
appropriation.
The DOJ and AOC also have identified certain procedural features of the current law that, if
amended, would facilitate further automation of the DNA expunction process. For example:
• The current statute mandates that the DA inform the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI)
of expunction-eligible cases via a request form bearing the signature of the prosecuting
district attorney or a judge, depending on the method by which the case was disposed.
By switching to electronic notification,2 the AOC and the SBI could further automated the
process to eliminate the costs associated with physical notification, such as printing
costs and postage, procedural delays inherent to mailed communications, well as the
double data entry the current process requires.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 38
• The current statute requires verification by a judge when expunction-eligible cases are
disposed via dismissal by the court or acquittal of the defendant. However, the fact of
disposition on those grounds is maintained as part of the court’s records as part of the
ordinary course of business. Because the DA or a clerk of superior court could confirm a
case’s disposition on those grounds from the court’s records, the judge’s direct
interaction in this process in unnecessary. As the current statute is written, the DA
makes the determination of expunction eligibility; the judge’s signature appears to be a
mere formality.
The DOJ and AOC will continue to work together and discuss these options over the coming
months, and are available to advise and assist with any clarification of the statute that the
General Assembly deems necessary.
Training Sessions
DNA training sessions were provided during the months of December 2010 and January 2011 in
Preparation for the implementation of the DNA Database Act of 2010 on February 1, 2011.
Individuals from the SBI DNA Database Unit, Forensic Biology Section, Department of Justice,
and North Carolina Justice Academy provided 15 training sessions across the state of North
Carolina. Training was conducted in the following locations: Edneyville, Morganton, Charlotte,
Raleigh, Greensboro, Salemburg, Greenville, Nags Head, and Franklin. During these sessions,
attending law enforcement officers were provided a PowerPoint presentation, a lesson plan
which explained the arrestee law, and a DVD demonstrating the proper collection technique.
Two additional training sessions are also being scheduled for early 2011.
Data Management System
DOJ’s IT division has designed new data management software which will aid in processing
arrestee and convicted offender samples. This program will allow the database unit to track all
samples that are received through upload and/or expungement. It will contain only identifying
information such as name, date of birth, submitting agency, qualifying offense, etc. There will be
no DNA profiles maintained in this system. Each DNA sample will be assigned a unique
barcode number which will be used by the system for tracking purposes. The system will also
be integrated with Live Scan, AOC, and CCH. DOJ’s IT division has worked diligently on this
project with the SBI lab for several months. The system will be an invaluable tool for the
processing of arrestee and convicted offender samples.
Live Scan
DOJ IT is also working with the 4 major Live Scan Vendors in North Carolina (Dataworks Plus,
MorphoTrack, Identix, and Crossmatch) to upgrade all Live Scan software to incorporate DNA
collection into the booking procedure. Data fields required for DNA collection are being added to
the software. In addition, the software will prompt the individual performing the Fingerprinting
when a DNA sample is required for a qualifying arrest. If the individual does not collect a
required sample, Live Scan will require a reason for the sample not being taken. If a sample is
not required due to the fact that the SBI already has a convicted offender sample on file for the
arrestee, Live Scan will also notify the individual of that situation. The SBI DNA Database
Collection Card required for each submission will be printed directly from Live Scan. These
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 39
upgrades will help integrate arrestee DNA collection into the already established booking
procedure. It will not be required that agencies use Live Scan for this purpose, but this tool will
be made available to assist Law Enforcement Agencies.
Validation
The DNA Database Unit is validating the currently used robotic platform for convicted offender
blood analysis, to analyze DNA from the cheek cell collectors used in the new standardized
arrestee and convicted offender kits. Additionally, we have recently revised all standard
operating procedures to meet ISO accreditation in 2011.
Storage System
To accommodate the convicted offender and arrestee specimens, the SBI DNA Database Unit
recently purchased an electronic filing and storage system which has the capacity to hold
approximately 500,000 convicted offender specimens. SBI is currently procuring a similar
system which has the capacity to hold approximately 400,000 arrestee specimens.
Personnel
Currently, the four DNA forensic scientist and three DNA technician positions have been posted
and recruited and are in the final stages of completing background checks. The majority of
these positions are expected to be filled by February of 2011.
Note: Until June 1, 2012, any such automated notification would be limited to the grounds
specified in G.S. 15A-266.3A(h)(1)a. through c. Prior to that date, expunction for the grounds
listed in G.S. 15A-266.3A(h)(1)d. and e. is initiated only upon a written request from the
defendant or defendant’s counsel. After that date, the automation would attempt to notify the DA
of a case’s potential eligibility for DNA expunction without a written request. It should be noted
that the courts have no information from which to identify cases eligible for DNA expunction
under subdivision (h)(1)d (no charges filed within statute of limitations), because without a filed
charge, here is no court record of the proceeding. The only record of such proceedings would
be in the records of the arresting agency.
Note: For an example, see the authorization for the courts to provide the Division of Motor
Vehicles with electronic notice of certain convictions in the last sentence of G.S. 20‐24(b).
Note: Pursuant to G.S. 15A‐266.3A(j), the DA must “verify and indicate the facts of the
qualifying event on a verification form,” after which the DA merely must “obtain the signature of
a judge” for certain dispositions. The judge in this scenario exercises no discretion and makes
no determination regarding the eligibility of the defendant for expunction of the DNA sample.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 40
Criminal Justice Information Sharing
Background
The CJIN Board started to investigate information sharing at the local level for a variety of
reasons; the CJIN Mobile Data Network was approaching obsolescence (the number of users
has significantly decreased), the number of wireless applications was continuing to increase
(eCITATION, DMV & Correction Photos, etc.), there were a variety of information sharing
systems being implemented and used across the state (COPLINK, Police to Police, Rambler,
Inform, etc.), there were systems under development or being discussed at the state level that
would impact the operations of local law enforcement (NCAWARE, CJLEADS, Electronic
Discovery, Crime Statistics, etc.), the Federal Bureau of Investigation was developing a national
repository for local law enforcement information that contained advanced analytical tools
(National Data Exchange – N-DEx), the Naval Criminal Investigative Services was developing a
repository for local law enforcement agencies in proximity to Naval Installations that contained a
database with applications (Law Enforcement Information Exchange – LInX), the wireless
industry was continuing to enhance their products and broadband was being addressed at the
federal level with stimulus funds, traditional 911 voice systems were on a fast track toward data
and video that may have a cascading effort on record systems and courts, advance
technologies were emerging in the criminal justice community such as digital signature, GIS,
and security with two-factor authentication, and other states were implementing and discussing
projects that would collect local incident information through the use of third-party vendors
deploying a turn-key approach.
Local law enforcement agencies across North Carolina are the custodians for a wealth of crime
fighting data. These agencies maintain a repository containing a comprehensive view of every
criminal incident that occurs within their jurisdiction. Over the last several decades this data has
been in transition in the majority of agencies from a manual to automated process, complete
with computers in the vehicles – millions of dollars are spent by local agencies to implement,
operate, and maintain these systems. While the functionality of these systems varies
significantly, they are each designed to satisfy the business needs of that agency.
In parallel with researching local information sharing, the CJIN Board contacted other states and
federal agencies to determine how the industry was addressing these issues. The Board
received presentations from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Naval Criminal
Investigative Service (NCIS) both of which have operational data repositories containing local
incident information and both are functional on a national level – an effort is currently underway
to connect these repositories.
The CJIN staff contacted all the RMS vendors that operate in North Carolina. Members of the
Board and law enforcement met with three of these vendors, that collectively serve in excess of
95% of our local agencies and have their corporate headquarters in North Carolina, to
determine how receptive they would be to providing a standard interface, and more importantly,
maintaining this interface as part of their future core suite of products. The vendors were not
only receptive to standardizing, they provided some significant insight into other areas such as
single sign-on, two factor authentication, warrants, etc. CJIN facilitated these meetings;
however, personnel from local law enforcement agencies and other state agencies were in
attendance including the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the State Bureau of
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 41
Investigation (SBI). The vendors also agreed to work closely with AOC on investigating an
electronic interface to the NCAWARE System.
The Board was concerned that the impact to the criminal justice community within the state, as
a result of all the various systems being developed, may be detrimental to the existing business
process of local law enforcement agencies. If properly planned, designed, and implemented all
the aforementioned items would significantly enhance the operation of local law enforcement.
The CJIN Board needed to update their original strategic plan and started the process by
addressing the place where the majority of criminal cases originate, with the local law
enforcement agencies. The Board was also working with the various state agencies on a
variety of upgrades, enhancements, and new systems, while staying in contact with other states
and federal agencies.
Board Meetings & Information Gathering
To obtain a base line on information sharing and the technology being utilized, both at the local
and state level, the CJIN Board reached out to various agencies for assistance. The following
agencies provided the Board with presentations, live demonstrations, and handouts:
September 13, 2007
• Governor’s Crime Commission – Grants
• NC Fusion Center – ISAAC
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Bureau of Investigation – SAFIS
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• State Highway Patrol – DMV Photos
• E911 Wireless Board
• Durham Sheriff’s Office – Gang Net
November 8, 2007
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• State Bureau of Investigation – SAFIS
• Department of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention – NC-JOIN
• North Carolina Local Government Information Systems Association
• Office of Information Technology Services – Second Major Data Center
• Department of Correction – OPUS
January 24, 2008
• Town of Cary IT
• City of Wilson IT
• City of High Point PD
• City of Jacksonville IT/PD
• State Bureau of Investigation – SAFIS
• City of Durham PD
• City of Raleigh PD
• Buncombe County IT/District Attorney
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 42
March 12, 2008
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• State Bureau of Investigation – SAFIS
• 2008 General Assembly Report
September 18, 2009
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• State Highway Patrol – DMV Photos
• Federal Bureau of Investigation – InfraGard
• Governor’s Crime Commission – SAVAN
• Office of State Controller – CJLEADS
• State Highway Patrol – CJIN Mobile Data Network
November 20, 2008
• Town of Coats PD
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• State Highway Patrol – DMV Photos
• Department of Corrections – DOC Photos
• Buncombe County/City of Asheville IT/District Attorney
• Department of Corrections – Probation System
• State of Pennsylvania – Justice Network
January 27, 2009
• Office of Information Technology Services – Digital Signatures & E-Forms
• Wake County Sheriff’s Office
• City of Raleigh PD
• City of Kinston PD
• Johnston County Sheriff’s Office
• State of Michigan – Justice Network
March 26, 2009
• Office of Information Technology Services – Digital Signatures & E-Forms
• Wake County Sheriff’s Office
• 2009 General Assembly Report
• State of Nebraska – Justice Network
October 29, 2009
• Administrative Office of the Courts – NCAWARE
• State Highway Patrol – VIPER
• Department of Corrections – DOC Photos
• Charlotte Mecklenburg PD – CRISS
• Office of State Controller – CJLEADS
• NC Department of Justice – Local Data Integration & Crime Statistics
• Naval Criminal Investigative Service – LInX
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 43
• Federal Bureau of Investigation – N-DEx
January 28, 2010
• Local Criminal Justice Information Sharing
• Town of Coats PD
• City of Dunn PD
• Harnett County Sheriff’s Office
• City of Benson PD
• City of Lillington PD
• Town of Angier PD
• HB 1282 – Automated Pawn Systems
• City of Raleigh PD
• Wake County Sheriff’s Office
• Charlotte Mecklenburg PD
• Guilford County Sheriff’s Office
• City of Fayetteville PD
• Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office
• City of Jacksonville IT/PD
March 18, 2010
• Next Generation Emergency Dispatch Solution
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Cisco Systems
• Buncombe County Senior ADA
• Pawn Systems Study
• Approved 2010 General Assembly Report
October 14, 2010
• DMV Photos – New Photo Recognition System
• Tracking Dashboard for Probation Officers
• CJIN Information Sharing Initiative
• NCIS LInX System
• LInX Governance Board
• FBI – N-DEx
• Approve Initiative for Standards
• CJLEADS Update
• Electronic Discovery – AOC
November 17, 2010
• Next Generation 911
• Information Sharing Initiative
• VisionAir
• Southern Software
• SunGard OSSI
• RMS Standards
• JMS Standards
March 24, 2011
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 44
• DOC Notification of Outstanding Warrants
• Using Web Services
• Electronic Discovery Project – Evidence Numbering
• Approved 2011 General Assembly Report
• SB-144 Cash Converters
• Recommended Approval of the Senate Bill
• Discussion of CJIN Staff
October 13, 2011
• Discuss Workshops with RMS Vendors
• NCAWARE
• CJLEADS
• DA access to DMV
• Mental Health Access to Criminal Records
• Crime Lab Numbering
• Electronic Discovery Update
• DA Evidence in Video Format
• Remote Access to ACIS
• Use of VPNs
• CJIS Two-Factor Authentication, FBI
• COPLINK, CRISS, i2, Horry County, SC
• NCIS – LInX Northrop Grumman, NC LInX Board
• Interface two Regional Systems
• Next Generation 911
• NC One-Map, Geographical Information Systems
February 23, 2012
• CJLEADS
• CJIN Mobile Data
• NCAWARE
• Access to ACIS
• DAS Alerting
• Statewide Criminal Search for DA
• Verizon Smart Phone Criminal Justice Applications
• Interface COPLINK and LInX
• Governor’s Crime Commission
• DNA
• Mental Health – Criminal Records
• Scrap Metal
• Charlotte/Mecklenburg PD
• Raleigh PD
• NC Fusion Center – ISAAC
• DOC Smart Phone Applications
• NC DEx
Note: The details associated with the majority of the above presentations are posted on the
CJIN Board Website with contact information on the agency and links to the presentations.
CJIN Ge
Local La
After num
agencies
informati
agencies
incident
incident;
crimes, s
the scen
informati
Based on
the State
• H
• In
• K
• N
• S
• S
• S
• U
• V
Two age
agencies
The vend
the Reco
Managem
informati
the state
• SunG
(P2P
• South
• Visio
NC Crim
To addr
sharing a
CJIN B
consistin
the data
categorie
NC law e
eneral Asse
aw Enforcem
merous discu
s, it was ob
on is the Re
s within the s
that occurs
they are th
searching fo
e, interviews
on.
n our resear
e of North Ca
HTE OSSI Co
nterAct
Keystone
New World
SunGard OSS
Southern Sof
Spillman
USA
VisionAir
encies have
s do not poss
dors genera
ords Manag
ment, Mobil
on sharing
:
Gard OSSI
);
hern Softwa
nAir – Inform
minal Justi
ess crimina
and make inf
Board crea
g of the fo
a was segm
es and includ
enforcement
embly Repo
ment Agenc
ussions with
bvious that
ecord Manag
state. These
within that
e source of
r specific inf
s, etc.), adv
rch and the
arolina:
orporate
SI
ftware
developed
sess an elec
ally provide
gement Sys
e Data Sys
systems for
– Police
re – Ramble
m.
ce Data Ba
al justice in
formed deci
ated a da
llowing data
mented into
des an exce
t agencies:
ort – April 2
cies/Record
h sheriff dep
one of the
gement Syst
e record sys
jurisdiction.
information
formation (c
vanced crime
assistance
their own i
ctronic recor
an integrate
tem (both P
stems, Fire
r their agenc
to Police
er; and
ase
nformation
sions, the
ata base
a items –
o several
ess of 540
2012
d Manageme
uties and po
key source
tem (RMS)
stems contai
These dat
used for tra
color of vehic
e analysis, e
of the SBI,
nternal syst
rds system.
ed system c
Police, Fire
Alerting, et
cies and the
ent System
olice officers
es of crimin
used by the
n a wealth o
tabases con
acking crime
cle, descript
etc. It is the
we found th
tems for rec
comprised o
& Emerge
tc. The RM
e following a
Vendors
s from all the
al justice a
majority of
of informatio
ntain the offi
es (trend an
tion of prope
e repository
he following
cords and in
of Computer
ency Medica
MS vendors
are currently
Pag
e aforementi
and public s
law enforce
n regarding
cial record o
nalysis), map
erty, personn
of crime fig
RMS Vendo
n excess of
Aided Disp
al Services)
s have also
y available w
ge 45
ioned
safety
ement
each
of an
pping
nel at
ghting
ors in
f 100
patch,
, Jail
built
within
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 46
County and Law Enforcement Agency Information:
• NC County
• Population served by LE Agency
• Agency Name
• Originating Reporting Identifier (ORI) Number
• Number of Sworn Officers
• Agency Address
• Contact – Sheriff or Police Chief
• Phone Number
• E-Mail
• Judicial District
• Court Directory – Judges, District Attorney, Clerk, Magistrates, etc. (AOC Link)
• Member – Organization of Metro Chief
Note: The above information provides an overview of each NC law enforcement agency.
LE Information Sharing Systems used by Agencies:
• I2 – COPLINK, National Crime Analysis System
• NCIS development System, Law Enforcement Information Exchange, LInX
• Police to Police, SunGard OSSI Product
• Police to Citizen, SunGard OSSI Product
• Rambler, Southern Software Product
• Inform, VisionAir Product
• Leads On Line, National Pawn Shop Data Base
• Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), Which the Agencies report UCR
Note: The above information provides CJIN with all the ongoing information sharing efforts
LE Dispatch Information and Systems Used:
• 911 Dispatch Center, Public Safety Answering Point, agency receive 911 calls directly
• Dispatched by another agency, identify agency
• Governing Authority of Dispatch Center
• 911 System, type and vendor
• Radio System, type and vendor
• Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System
• Record Management System (RMS) Vendor
• Mobile Data Vendor
• Field Based Reporting Vendor
• Jail Management System (JMS) Vendor
• Narcotics Module, type and vendor
• Fire Records Management Vendor
• Geographical Information System (GIS) Vendor
• Technical Contact Person in Agency
• Technical Phone Number
• Technical E-Mail
Note: The above information provides a comprehensive profile of all the systems
State and Local Systems:
• Gang Net
• CJLEADS
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 47
• NCAWARE
• CAPTURES
• OPUS
• CJIN Mobile Data
• VIPER
• Pawn Transaction Program
• Electronic Discovery
• Other systems
The local law enforcement agencies are identified below along with their RMS vendor and if
they possess one of the information sharing systems it is denoted; the three major RMS
vendors within North Carolina provide their officers with the aforementioned information sharing
tools – Rambler, Police to Police, and Inform. Information regarding the law enforcement
agency is also provided; population of jurisdiction and number of sworn officers.
The chart displays the agencies that are participating in one of the two regional systems in the
state – COPLINK or NCIS’s LInX, in addition to, the agencies that are designated a Public
Safety Answering Point (receives 911 calls and dispatches police, fire, and emergency medical
services), and agencies that use Leads-On-Line (a data base of pawn broker records that is
being used by approximately 60 agencies and reflect over 200 pawn shops within North
Carolina, the system is connected to the NCIC’s Hot List and contains data from approximately
1400 law enforcement agencies in 35 other states.
CJIN General Assembly Report – April 2012 Page 48
Agency/RMS Vendor/County/Information Sharing Chart
AGENCY NAME
Sworn
Officers RMS Vendor County POP PSAP Coplink LInX P2P Rambler
Leads
On
Line
Aberdeen PD 28 Southern Software Moore 5,301 1 1
Alamance County SO 118 OSSI Alamance 60,211 1 1
Albemarle PD 49 OSSI Stanly 16,338 1
Albert J. Ellis PD Onslow Airport
Alexander County SO 32 OSSI Alexander 35,385 1 1
Alleghany County SO 13 Southern Software Alleghany 9,460 1 1
Andrews PD 6 Southern Software Cherokee 1,913
Angier PD 12 Southern